Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 14

< 13 June	15 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Mistaken nomination. SnottyWong talk 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Masonic Lodge" is not an ambiguous term. The list of specific buildings given here is, firstly, inappropriate for a disambig page, and secondly, duplicated on List of Masonic buildings. Delete per WP:SETINDEX. SnottyWong talk 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you just linked. At WP:SETINDEX you are given Signal Mountain as an example. The disambiguation has a listing of all mountains named Signal Mountain and a link to a list page. you basically defeated your own point. PeRshGo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is an obvious difference. A disambiguation page exists to allow users to navigate to articles which all have the same or similar names. Since there are multiple entities named "Signal Mountain", a disambig page in this case is warranted. There are not, however, multiple entities named "Masonic Lodge". There are multiple entities which fall into the category of Masonic Lodge (i.e. they can be described as a Masonic lodge), but this is not the same thing. Using your logic, we would have a disambiguation page for Human which lists every BLP article in Wikipedia. SnottyWong talk 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one article on Wikipedia titled "Masonic Lodge", so a dab page is unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station1 is an experienced dab editor who knows better. Station1 knows this complies with MOS:DABRL and every other aspect of wp:MOSDAB policy! Station1 and i have worked together cooperatively sometimes, and sometimes seem at loggerheads, but this assertion by Station1 astounds me. I don't know "Snottywong" but AGF that the nomination is well-meant, just uninformed. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Snottywong's logic as I described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (disambiguation) but I can't disagree with Station1's. PeRshGo (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are 3 wikipedia-notable places named exactly Masonic Lodge listed in the dab, and 2 close variations worth mentioning (that are likely known also as simply that, and/or are likely targets of some readers' searches). 2 of those 3 are currently primary redlinks, but they are valid disambiguation page entries as they include a properly formatted supporting bluelink to an article showing the redlink in a meaningful context, conforming exactly to the MOS:DABRL guideline. The disambiguation page is needed to clarify to editors what is proper name to start the articles at, and to clarify to readers what are the options and inform them that wikipedia currently lacks, but would welcome, articles on the redlink ones. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Goes West[edit]

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

Delete. Not notable. About person with a wasting disease, pitiable and all that, but the film is not notable. Self-references and IMDB which is not copy-edited and therefore not considered reliable. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Apparently the nominator judged the current article (yes, needs cleanup and better sourcing) and failed to check for available sources before nominating. While not wanting to underscore lack of WP:BEFORE, G-news find a great number of news articles for this film,[1] AND about Darius Weems [2] And the film has won multiple awards [3] and critical acclaim. Seems like its time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite rare that a documentary film makes the impact as has this one... and rarer still for an independent film by teenagers. I have begun cleanup, expansion, and sourcing to the article, and ask that editors reading this discussion take a look at THIS and perhaps help out in improving and sourcing. I also strongly urge that the nomninator seriously consider a wihdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the awards are for minor film festivals which if taken on their own would not be sufficient. However, the shear number of awards received and the ongoing coverage shows it is clearly notable. The fact that it is being shown in a film festival in Kerala this year, over 3 years after its release, is also strong evidence towards it having lasting impact. Quantpole (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Variety review alone and the sheer number of awards won make it a fairly obvious case, for me, anyway. Yes, some before WP:BEFORE work would have been nice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Passes WP:NF. SnottyWong talk 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News coverage and awards. Dream Focus 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever happened here, it's notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Indiscriminate list. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP client software[edit]

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

Delete Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by people to advertise their products/projects. That is the sole purpose of this "article". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With some cleanup, this would provide a useful index to notable XMPP clients. Suggest that we remove all external links except the one to the XMPP site & then wikilink all clients. Red links can be allowed to stay on the list for a short time to encourage stubs, but can be purged if it is clear they are not notable. --Karnesky (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that we should keep the list because it is WP:USEFUL? Is that our purpose here, to provide a list of useful external links? I thought Wikipedia was not a web directory? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read both WP:USEFUL and my comments before wiki-lawyering!

"Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'"

This is precisely why I said this page can serve as an index. I also argued that the list article could be kept & the external links can be removed. --Karnesky (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External linkspam has been removed. I'd encourage you to be less liberal in deletion, when cleanup is relatively trivial (especially when you found this page on another talk page, to prevent any accusation of WP:POINT). --Karnesky (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Where is the informative part that helps people navigate the subject? All I see is NAME, SUPPORTED PLATFORM and SUPPORTED PROTOCOLS. None of it backed up by sources. Do you genuinely think anyone has put any effort into this article except to go "Hey cool, I'm gonna add my project to the list too." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another point I meant to mention in the nomination that I forgot. What does this article get us that isn't better provided by categories? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories are not meant to be mutually exclusive. The fact that the list informes us about platform and protocol makes it better than a category already. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might refer to other AfDs re. list articles. It has been said time-and-again that lists are not redundant to categories. This list is useful over categories for the same reasons that other software lists are, including:

It provides additional sub-categorization/clarification (in this case, license, platform, and other miscellaneous notes)
Some red-linked entries are notable products & this encourages the creation of stubs.

--Karnesky (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, indiscriminate list of non-notable titles. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No different from many other software list articles. It is clearly not indiscriminate, it seems to list only notable entries (all bluelinks), if some entries are not notable they can be removed and so, being an issue dealt with editing, we do not delete for this reason alone. The "advertisement" reasoning of the nom is unproven and smells of failing WP:AGF. Lists are meant to be useful, in structuring information for searching and easiness purpose. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement reason is unproven? Did you look at the edit history? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 1)please point me at where blatant advertisement pops out and 2)since when promotional edits are considered a reason to delete a whole article? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:IINFO applies. This list is unlikely to be completable on any level. Claritas § 11:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart that there is nothing indiscriminate about the list (it has a clearly defined topic with a clearly defined inclusion criteria), why do you think it is "unlikely to be completeable", and why do we need it to be completed right now? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, would you mind please taking some time to understand what WP:OR and WP:MADEUP really mean, instead of citing them completely nonsensically in every AfD? Do XMPP clients look like a madeup topic? --Cyclopia ^talk 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In answer to Cyclopia, WP:GHITS has never been a valid rationale for inclusion. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research. That means that there should be some form of reliable, third party source that either provides a definition of the list in accordance with WP:Source list or comments upon such a list (i.e. an acknowledgement of its existence in the real world). There are no such sources cited in this list, hence my delete recomendation, since the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking of a number of GHITS, I am providing evidence that XMPP clients are not something madeup one day but are the subject of publications in the real world. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research.: what "external validation"? Since when are WP articles peer reviewed outside WP? And would you mind explain where is the OR in this list? Citing policies is fine, citing them without knowing what they mean is not. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment XMPP clients surely exist in the real world, but it is this "list of XMPP clients" that does not: this is the stumbling block. Not only is there no other list like it from which a definition can be sourced, but there is no other source like it, period. When I refer to WP:NOT#OR, I am referring to the list itself, not its content. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Being a list a navigational help, we build it, like we build navboxes, infoboxes or categories. It is not meant to be an article about a notable list, it is meant to be a navigational help for users to navigate other articles. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently, all external links seem to have been removed. This invalidates the nom rationale of "Indiscriminate list of external links." --Cyclopia ^talk 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It is important for people and XMPP is an open, standard, extensible protocol... — Neustradamus (✉) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montanamo[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no signficant coverage about this book. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^T · C 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini thin[edit]

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

Non notable musician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources, virtually no Google hits. Promotional article, with WP:BLP issues. JNW (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others; user took it upon themselves to take the article that already had that name and essentially vandalize it into the form it is now (the original article has since been deleted), so I'm less than willing to let them have their way. HalfShadow 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell from the history, the author created this page from scratch. The page Mini Thin (note alternate capitalization) still redirects to ephedrine as appropriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Despite the Vanilla Ice feel, this is apparently an unknown hip-hopist on an unknown record label with an article created by a WP:SPA that only promotes this artist. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete history and redirect to ephedrine. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter fun facts[edit]

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

Unsourced trivia (possibly in violation of the original research policy); Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. Page creator contested the PROD. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. trivia articles or section are usually discouraged in WP due to being not really encyclopedic in nature, nevertheless a well written and well sourced article might be beneficial to readers and hence at least occasionally acceptable. But currently this article is neither, hence it should be deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A10. Hairhorn (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a first time contribution from a new editor, and I suspect a young fan of the books (I'm guessing early teens), so I won't be too harsh. We do have a policy against trivia sections. The preference is for weaving interesting facts into the narrative, along with a sources for statements that raise a new talking point (hence the "Did you know?" section on the main page).

I do recommend that the author check out [4], as well as contributing to other Harry Potter articles on Wikipedia. Mandsford 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivia. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or we'll have Harry Potter not-so-fun facts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. If this article were allowed to stand, which "facts" would be appropriate and which "facts" would not. The entire narrative of all seven books could be paraphrased as "fun facts". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stand-alone trivia article. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. GregJackP (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE. We're not a fan-site. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, capitalization is incorrect, and it's entirely trivia. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad-faith nom Acroterion _(talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nupedia[edit]

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

The website does not even exist, the HTML logo is obviously made in Microsoft Paint and passes WP:NOTABLE. CuriousDrat (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No, it's a defunct website, but its notability is quite well documented. This is the second spurious AfD from this editor, and apart from petty vandalism, that's all they've accomplished. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Duplicates additional subjects; WP:FORK even WP:DICDEF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democratically elected[edit]

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

This short unreferenced article is bordering wiktionary. Is there anything else to say that "democratically elected" means "elected democratically"? Soman (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to democracy, dictionary def of a sentence fragment - what exactly is this "democratically elected" entity? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as alternate title, now Ed has explained what the subject he intended was, I see no substantial difference from the topic of the article election. Not a probable search term, so no need for a redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have all the respect in the world for Ed Poor, who was one of the founding fathers for my favorite internet site of all time. I think that there is a potential for this to be expanded, albeit with a different title. Democratic elections are defined by whoever happens to be making the rules. Some of the most repressive regimes in the world-- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the German Democratic Republic, for instance -- have professed to have people power, the literal translation of democracy. Then there are variations like Indonesia's "Guided Democracy". There are different directions in which political science majors can take this one. Mandsford 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is no "Elections" section in Democracy, and the point of the article I created is to track which people or governments were (or were not) elected according to their country's rules. Then there's also the issue of coups and overthrows, as in "the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of X". Our readers want to know why the "most democratic country in the world" would do something so strange as to thwart the will of another country's people ... or whatever, which is the context in which I've seen the phrase democratically elected the most. See especially Covert United States foreign regime change actions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but I don't see how having a separate article on democratically elected helps to settle issues in the US regime change article? As per creating a list of democratic and non-democratic govts, thats a pov minefield. How about (as pointed out by Mansford above) the Indonesian coup of 1965? Sukarno had indeed been democratically elected, but mandate extended, etc.. How about Turkey? Are elections in a state with a 10% threshold really democratic? What about Colombia, where there is on one hand multiparty election but at the same time the state is engaged in physically eliminating critics? --Soman (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed seems to want to write the article democratic election. However, I can't see how this would differ from the major subject of the article election. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to election, but not a common search term, so no redirect. Hekerui (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems you don't want to have this article at all, because you are pessimistic about whether we can write neutrally about multiple points of view. Well, the NPOV policy tells us exactly how to do that, and I have plenty of experience working with others: see WP:TEAMWORK for more on techniques of collaboration, and 1973 Chile coup for an example of one of my first and most successful collaborations with my fellow Wikipedians. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it would be easy to avoid personal POV on this one, since the United Nations members have been monitoring multiparty elections for many years, and there are internationally accepted standards for democratically elected governments. Any such article would need to recognize that the definition of a "true" democracy varies from one state to the next, but the terms for participation are usually codified within the national constitution. In the People's Republic of China and other one-party states, the theory of democracy is that people have the right to vote yes-or-no on the candidates who have been selected (indirectly) by everyone through the people's party. Even in multi-party states, the idea of democratically-elected government is tempered by restrictions on who is eligible to vote. Still, I can't help but wonder whether these ideas are already covered elsewhere. Mandsford 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—the subject of this article is redundant to democracy and election. "Democratically elected" is too vague between the two to be a redirect to either, and a WP:DAB page seems overkill: let the search engine handle it. –Grondemar 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to democracy and election, arguably a POV fork. Redirect to democracy may be sensible, but I'm not sure how frequent a search term it is. Claritas § 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Dunleavy[edit]

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

Reserve team footballer, never made 1st team appearance, only age group international appearance, fails WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORTS), only general sports journalism, no independent in depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Per established consensus of football biographies this person does not meet notability criteria. ClubOranje^T 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom. Having never appeared in a fully-pro or senior international match he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage to merrit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE by never making a first team appearance, else I would've already created such an article. Wolvesweb (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable. --Triwbe (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

This character only appeared in two-episodes, and shows no signs of ever appearing in the show again. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character is important within the shows history, and just as important as any other companion. magnius (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character left after two episodes and left seemingly no legacy. He wasn't that important in the show's history considering that, and when this article was nominated before, it was agreed to MERGED into another article, I only renominated it to reevaluate it due to WP's rules possibly changing. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough real-world information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters—seriously, guys, he was in two episodes, and relatively minorly in each. Having an article for such a non-character is really opening the floodgates in an un-necessary way. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many characters (and not just in DW) were only in two parters, some less than that, but they still warrant an article to themselves. Basing your opinion on how many episodes a character in isn't the consideration, it's how important the subject surely? magnius (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as my use of the words "relatively minorly in each" clearly indicated, I do not feel the subject is important at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could warrant an article with a bit more scrounging about for sources. If this is the best there is for this character though, I think we should merge per TreasuryTag. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TreasuryTag. No real lasting legacy, and much of the text is unsourced, so a merge feels like the right approach here. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A previous AfD for this article was closed as Merge, but it seems this never happened. Does anyone know why not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the time I believe they couldn't find a target to merge it too. Since so much time had passed and one person claimed on the Talk Page that it now passed WP:FICT. As such, I decided to renominate it to see if opinions had really changed. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think an encylopedia should only have entries about fictional characters when they are significantly noteworthy outside of just fandom - so The Doctor would be okay, but I don't consider a single other character in Doctor Who notable enough to warrant a page. That's my opinion, which is probably not popular among DW fans, but my vote here is definitely delete since this is a particularly minor character that appeared in DW several years ago.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But notability is not temporary... ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TT and previous AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a fair compromise. Support for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptid Hunters[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination for IP. See talk pages. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptid Hunters fails the criteria in that is has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. It has not won a major literary award. It has not inspired a movie, event or religion. It is not the subject of instruction at schools. And the author is not historically significant. Also nominating Tentacles (novel) for the same reason. 76.102.25.93 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search for "Cryptid Hunters" and "Roland Smith" shows results. [5] The summary of the first is from Tampa Tribune, but you can't read the article without paying for it, so you have to rely on just the search result summary: "What prompted Roland Smith to become an award winning children's ... The most popular he said is Cryptid Hunters".

http://www.rolandsmith.com/awards/index.htm

Cryptid Hunters

Cryptid Hunters makes the 2008 Nene recommended reading list of Hawaii!

2007-2008 South Carolina Junior Book Award

2007-2008 Mark Twain List

2006-2007 Texas Lone Star List

2007 Colorado Children's Book Award

2006-2007 Sunshine State Young Readers Award winner.

2007 Nevada Young Readers Award winner

2006-2007 Black-eyed Susan Award

Its on a lot of reading list, and has won a lot of awards. Dream Focus 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - as per WP:NBOOK, User:Dream Focus's extensive work/copyedits and reliable sources showing that this is an award winning author (see Cryptid Hunters primarily and also edits to Tentacles (novel)) who has written 25 books. Criteria #1, #4 and #5 are met. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cryptid Hunters per improvements to the article by Morenooso and Dream Focus, and per sources in current version of the article satisfying both the general and specific notability requirements for books. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tentacles (novel) - Sources for this sequel are not sufficient to pass the notability requirements as they are either not independent, are sales ranking statistics (not probative of anything) or are directory-style listings. And did I mention how much I hate multiple nominations in a single discussion, for exactly this reason? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Multiple reliably sourced citations showing Tentacles (novel) is on readings lists from college programs for children to charter and regular schools has been introduced into the article. Criteria #5 had been previously demonstrated (the author and his other work slated for deletion have been proved notable). Criteria #4 is now met by this book being "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs". ----moreno oso (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources added to the article demonstrate that "the book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country". It therefore passes criterion #4 of WP:NBOOK and should be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tentacles also, since now it has been found its on a lot of notable reading list. Dream Focus 06:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Passes WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong talk 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torment (comics)[edit]

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

~~This is a very poorly written stub with no notability presented for the subject within the article. Spidey104^contribs 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I found a large review published by Comics Bulletin, you can find out more at Pink Kryptonite and Rambles websites. I can imagine an informative article about this comics series. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Spidey104, but AfD is not cleanup. In my opinion we should discuss the notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the section you linked to: "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option."

I think it is harmful as is because it looks to be a non-notable subject that was given an article as fancruft. I think the story arc is notable, but if you read my previous comment again you will see that my complaint is that this article does not show that. Spidey104^contribs 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be familiar with the topic. Why don't you improve the article by editing? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like it could be notable as it was McFarlane's revamping of Spider-Man (with a new issue #1) which led to so much in 1990s comics (worth checking some of the sources at Modern Age of Comics). Equally, this was made in April 2009 but hasn't got much attention since, this is partly because hardly anything links to it (only one mainspace article - it isn't in the navbox as it should be). I'd suggest an intensive round of linking this in from the creators and characters, as well as a look around for more sources. Revist this in 6 months and see how it has shaped up. (Emperor (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep I've added some of the solid coverage from Voger (which contains interviews with McFarlane and the editor) as it is a key run with record breaking sales (if you search Amazon for "Spider-Man" and "McFarlane" the relevant pages pop right up). It needs more work but it is notable. (Emperor (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - isn't this one of the highest grossing comic storylines of all time? That seems notable enough. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think Sharp962 is correct, but does anyone have a verifiable source to put into the article about it? An article has to justify its notability within itself, not in the talk page comments about what could/should be in it. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for it breaking the record for comics sales. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good work Emperor. Thanks for your competent help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the considerable improvements. Artw (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to second the notion by Artw; though not an exemplar, this is a solid storyline article. This seems to be a fair article now, and time and ambitious editors should help it to continue to grow. I have to also agree that accolades to Emperor, Vejvančický, and even Spidey for the work improving the article. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable comic. It got ample coverage, as others have found. Dream Focus 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given significant improvements and the above discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is there anyway I can ask for this discussion to be closed? I still stand by my reasoning (see what I wrote above) to nominate this article for deletion, because it was an abysmal article that was harmful to the topic's image as it stood. However, the article has more than quintupled in size since I nominated it and the changes you can see here prove it is going in the right direction. But it still has LOTS of room for improvement, so don't stop fixing this article. The "Plot synopsis" is still horrendous and needs to be fixed. Spidey104^contribs 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of, course, it isn't just about whether an article is demonstrating notability, what also counts is if it can be demonstrated (its potential) and reading round the connected articles it became clear these are some of the highest selling comics ever. Equally, as I mention above, there were problems with it being almost an orphan article, despite its pivotal role within comics in general and Todd McFarlane's career in general. Because of that it had got very little traffic and few edits, so the first step would be to link it in from elsewhere. Then before nominating flag your concerns on the article (and perhaps in WT:CMC) - there were no clean-up tags on this article before it was AfDed. This was the first time I saw it and it didn't take long for Vejvančický and I to find coverage elsewhere, as was said above "AfD is not cleanup". (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As was quote above from "AfD is not cleanup": "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." The page you are linking to is a guideline and not an absolute reference, as is illustrated by the quote. Spidey104^contribs 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That quote goes on to specify what it means by harmful - key are WP:BLP violations, but also includes adverts, spam, nonsense, etc. So even by that this doesn't count as "harmful" (expect to our sensibilities ;) ). The important part there is: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia." Which pretty much sums up that article - it was pretty awful but not "harmful". (Emperor (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per lack of proper sources. Recreated as redirect to List of The Cleveland Show characters. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Tubbs[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of two or three major characters on a hit Fox TV show. I don't get the nominator's rationale. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Gage (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main character on a notable television show. Dream Focus 06:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination is probably on the basis that the article doesn't cite any reliable independent sources, and thus either (a) contains no verifiable information, or (b) contains so little verifiable information that it would be more appropriately redirected to List of The Cleveland Show characters. I don't suppose you feel like digging up some reliable, independent sources that discuss Donna Tubbs, rather than just The Cleveland Show, DreamFocus? The article also has the problem of containing little or no information from a real world perspective. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - While it is true that this article does not demonstrate that there is significant coverage of Donna Tubbs in reliable, independent sources, the main issue is that such coverage does not exist. Notability is not inherited; just because a media franchise is sufficiently notable for its own article does not mean that even its protagonist is also sufficiently notable for its own article. Neelix (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Claritas § 16:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per alll above me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to have potential. No prejudice against re-nominating or merging if the article remains shows no signs of improvement. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, she is a main character. CTJF83 pride 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editors are saying "Keep" but no one is addressing the primary concern that this character is not individually notable. Being a major character in a particular television series is not an assertion of notability; Ben Matlock of Matlock and Jeannie of I Dream of Jeannie are both the protagonists of their respective television series, but they are not sufficiently individually notable to justify their own articles. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers[edit]

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

This article is apparently composed entirely of original research. It is not up to Wikipedia to identify goals that have been misattributed. – Pee Jay 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There is no original research, a clear reference is made to an authoritative publication while links to video clips on the net will be added periodically, particularly during the current World Cup, with quotes provided in many individual entries. Of course it is 'up to Wikipedia' to check that sources used – such as FIFA match reports – are accurate. If people don't like the fact that FIFA match reports are often unreliable and that they have to check stuff for themselves, tough. Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'. Mjefm (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you that sentences such as "despite video showing", "sometimes listed as" and "did not appear to be" are clear references to authoritative publications. I would like to see external links and references to make sure this is not Original Research as PeeJay suggests. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'.: Quite the opposite, see WP:VNT --Cyclopia ^talk 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:total lack of clarity as to the distinction between inadvertent deflection and an own goal. Sometimes there is argument about the last touch: by that criterion half of all goals scored would be own goals by goalkeepers. Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a notable topic in its own right, and in its present state violates WP:OR. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it were properly referenced, it probably wouldn't be original research. However, I fail to see how this subject is independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this is notable, never mind the verifiability and OR issues. Probably also trivia. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Official FIFA reports might be inaccurate, but they're still official and we have to stick to them. If there are discrepancies with other authoritative sources, then simply point them out in the respective World Cup articles. — Luxic (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indiscriminate collection of information. With no central source to collate said instances, and with most of them being pretty subjective, readers cannot trust that this subject is given a neutral treatment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (almost) everyone. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. I like it, but it really is WP:OR. I'd suggest userification and no prejudice to recreation if entries show RS of actually having been disputed. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Cohen (dental surgeon)[edit]

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

Article's subject would be notable for inventing what is said to be a new type of mouthwash, but I have not been able to source this. I nominated the article for this product, SmartMouth, for deletion also.

Also he founded a company, Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc., which seems to exist only to sell this single product. He is said (with no citation) to be a member of at least two professional organizations, but he seems not to be an officer or otherwise notable in the management of either. I checked the staff pages of both here and here. Blue Rasberry 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About as notable as a dentist can be expected to be, in that he seems to have been making the news for the last 20 years [6] and [7] (which refers to a 1994 article in Readers' Digest). The press seems to have dubbed him a "leading expert on halitosis", and sought his wisdom [8] on the subject.

Mandsford 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI would say delete both articles. Marvin Cohen, D.D.S. did write the encyclopedic article on halitosis and is the inventor of SmarthMouth, which is sold by his small business Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc. This company has about 15 employees. The company also doesn't have a stock. Mel Rosenberg has done more work on halitosis than he has.HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although not an academic instructor, the claim to fame (i.e. "one of the world’s leading authorities on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of halitosis") needs to be matched against WP:PROF, specifically #1. It fails. GHits are not impressive in that it is commonplace for some medical professionals to court the press more than others. Membership in professional organizations and associations is not an indicator of notability. Location (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs to satisfy WP:PROF in this case, and I don't see that, but correct me if I'm wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"[I]t is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." A professor, dentist, physician, etc. can meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:PROF. The idea behind WP:PROF is that a lot of very significant academicians won't be well-known in the general press. Indeed, the trend among the academic elite is to avoid the mainstream media. Within academia, professors who seek their fame by becoming regularly quoted in the mainstream press are often looked down upon by their peers as egotists making up for their lack of achievement within the community. Mandsford 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that Mel Rosenberg is indeed the world's foremost expert on bad breath. Dr. Cohen is merely breathing hot air Vartanza (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XBMC4Xbox[edit]

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

Delete Just a copy and paste of the XBMC page, stupidly huge amounts of irrelevant duplication, unnecessary to distinguish it from regular XBMC, no attempt to establish independent notability (re a project forked only a week ago or so). Sumbuddi (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me, the nominator's "arguments" (which do not refer much to policy) would really point to a merge+redirect. That should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective articles. However, I believe that the article could be cleaned up and could be a stand-alone article (as it is a true fork & one that has been extensively documented, satisfying WP:N). --Karnesky (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The four references that aren't old and irrelevant do not establish notability. They say 'XBMC no longer supports Xbox' and don't mention any fork. Unless there is some assertion of notability (and a copied and pasted article with dozens of references from six years ago doesn't do that), it should be deleted. From what I can see, the project has one developer, and no releases, and moreover the last XBOX build of XBMC was a year or so ago - not the version currently used on other platforms, even prior to the announcement that xbox support was being discontinued. There's nothing here that couldn't be a section in XBMC (with or without a redirect). Sumbuddi (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; I have cleaned both articles, and I strongly think that they both now hold as stand-alone articles, (however I will if possible try to clean them even more) Gamester17 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate content fork. Make a note about XBMC4Xbox in the original XBMC article if appropriate, although the fact that XBMC4Xbox has never released anything would make the appropriateness of such a note highly questionable. There is definitely no justification for this separate article, due to the absence of any reliable secondary sources that cover the topic of XBMC4Xbox in detail, as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is reason to note XBMC4Xbox in the original XBMC article, I would strongly encourage making a redirect instead of deleting the article. The terms of the most common development kit used to build this code make official releases impossible. The code is available and the linked articles note that the developer of XBMC4Xbox is the same person who had been making sure that the original XBMC still worked for Xbox, so I see no reason to question anything. --Karnesky (talk) 01:40, 16s nev June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same team of people who are developing these two separate projects, the creating of a new team was part of the split, so there is a distinct separate team working on the new XBMC4Xbox project Gamester17 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same people. Look at the projects the XBMC4Xbox team has commit access to [9][10][11] (primary source; not intended for use in the article, but I think I've seen a secondary source that indicates the same thing). --Karnesky (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the person who split this into two separate articles and have cleaned up both articles so that they are not just simple copies of each other, (who ever said that they are "copy and paste " have not taken the time to compare the two articles). The XBMC4Xbox is a totally separate project from XBMC now, just how Boxee, MediaPortal and Plex (also forks of XBMC) are totally separate projects from from the original XBMC project. By separating these into two separate articles I have been able to cleaned the XBMC article for the original project from all the 'old' Xbox stuff which is no longer part of the original XBMC project. The fact is that the XBMC4Xbox does not only have one developer like Sumbuddi said but currently is has four developers (arnova, sholafsson, theuni, and exobuzz) as you can see listed on the SourceForge project page of people who have committed code to the SVN, and as for the releases and builds for the Xbox; for legal reasons there has never been any official releases or builds of the Xbox version of XBMC from the actual people who developing the code, all releases and builds are made by third-parties, (see the "legality" section in the article itself). Gamester17 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, it's XBMC for Xbox for god sake, just google xbmc AND xbox. The only thing is that the original project have been slit into two separate projects, only thing is that one kept the old name, but they could just as well both changed names into something new and then it would be much easier for people to understand that they have been split. By the way, please checkout http://www.xbmc4xbox.org which is a new unofficial fan site for this 'new' project. Gamester17 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the XBMC4Xbox article again, and will continue with updating the XBMC article to separate them even more Gamester17 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like copy and paste to me. Stuff like 'supported video formats' are identical, not least because XBMC4Xbox has never made any releases and the supported formats are actually those of XBMC. There is no point in this article because it's still the same app. When there's notability, when there's a real difference between XBMC for Xbox (which goes at XBMC where it has been for the last how ever many years while it has been part of the project), and XBMC4Xbox, this article might make sense.

My Xbox runs XBMC. It does not run XBMC4Xbox. Nobody's Xbox runs XBMC4Xbox, because no code has been released. XBMC is notable. XBMC for the Xbox goes at XBMC. Googling 'xbmc AND xbox' will find you a tonne of content that goes at XBMC, which for most of its life has been an Xbox app. NOT for this non-notable fork. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XBMC and XBMC4Xbox are not the same application, and they each have unique features and functions that the other does not. Not even the skins and addons are compatible out-of-the-box between the two applications, just try to install a skin or plugin made for XBMC on XBMC4Xbox or vice versa without first doing some heavy modifications to the code of that addon. As a former project manager of the XBMC project please trust me on this or just try for yourself to see if you can prove me wrong, they are not the same, I really do know what I am talking about. @Sumbuddi, your Xbox may run a old version of XBMC, but you are wrong that no Xbox's runs XBMC4Xbox because the source code and binaries for XBMC4Xbox is just as available as the source code for XBMC, that is both project's full source code is available on their respective project page on SourceForge, (and for reference no Xbox source code can be found on the XBMC project on SourceForge any longer, it is only available in the separate XBMC4Xbox Project). Fact is also that binaries for the old XBMC for Xbox has never been made available from the official XBMC project, you have always had to get them from independent third-parties who compile and distribute them on their own, and the same goes for XBMC4Xbox binaries which you can download today if look around the interwebs. By the way I have updated the referrers as well in the XBMC4Xbox article Gamester17 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct that the overwhelming majority of XBMC for Xbox installations are from illegal downloads, as very few endusers are capable of compiling the code themselves. Nonetheless I still haven't seen any sources stating that XBMC4Xbox, as a forked project, is notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim it down a lot. It's important that there is a fork, but I'm not sure we need so much adapted detail from XBMC (even if some of it's slightly different from the current XBMC). Frankly, that article and its relatives on Wikipedia have more minutia than should be in an encyclopedia article (like all of this info on supported formats). As an example of why to avoid deletion, when Plex forked, it took a little while for the internet to catch up with reviews etc. etc. Plex has the advantage of being deployed for a growing OS/hardware base, but otherwise they are similar.Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important that there's a fork, that doesn't mean it needs a separate article, when an 'XBMC4Xbox' heading on the XBMC article would serve that purpose perfectly well. The differences from XBMC on other platforms would be best explained in the main XBMC, where the functionality of XBMC is explained, and the few differences/limitations can explained. It doesn't make sense to have content about XBMC *for* the Xbox on the Xbox page (explaining for instance the limitations of the Xbox version - definitely required given the history of the project), and also content about XBMC4XBox on a separate page, with a huge degree of overlap between the two. The limitations of XBMC for the XBox such as not being able to play HD video content, are going to be the same as the limitations of XBMC4Xbox. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now trimmed and stripped the XBMC4Xbox article even more to try to list only things that are unique to XBMC4Xbox on the Xbox, which is a lot, and I think that Xbox only stuff is too much to fit into the XBMC article under a XBMC4Xbox subsection there. Gamester17 (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh??? The xbox-only stuff is an essential part of XBMC, which was originally xbox-only. The only unique content relevant to XBMC4Xbox is stuff that XBMC4Xbox does differently from XBMC. (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the question is notability. Which sources of the many sources listed constitute the significant coverage in reliable sources that are required to establish notability? I've looked at most of them, nothing I've found meets that bar. What am I missing? Also, users involved in the project might take a moment to review WP:COI. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork - material related to the XMBC4Xbox can be in the main XMBC page. Not much independent coverage and thus notability. Claritas § 07:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Redirect or Delete. The huge number of "sources" in the article fail to obscure the fact that this XBMC4Xbox, whatever it is, has no independent notability from the XBMC. The few independent sources, specialized tech blogs, all simply say that the XBMC4Xbox is a spinoff of the XBMC. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Recommend relisting. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that in the article as it stands, the information is useful, is difficult to trim down and requires several sections, and is largely irrelevant to the original XBMC. It looks good to me. --Farry (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is, for instance, 'XBMC4Xbox limitations' irrelevant to XBMC, when those limitations are the reason why the app originally known as 'Xbox Media Center' is no longer supported on that device? Sumbuddi (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmartMouth[edit]

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

The article's subject is a brand of mouthwash. The article states that the mouthwash uses novel technology but it is not clear whether this is an advertising claim or good science, even though a reputable medical school and doctor are named. There is a mechanism proposed for the science of attacking bad breath, but it is not clear whether all mouth washes work in this way. The references given are primary sources reporting efficacy tests related to the product; to me this is WP:MILL because all OTC drugs get some kind of testing and it is not evident that these tests are special. I have not been able to find third-party reviews that indicate this product is notable compared to similar products in its class. Blue Rasberry 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article of the inventor of this product, Marvin Cohen (dental surgeon), for deletion. Blue Rasberry 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, although I think that the inventor is notable. How this advertisement ("SmartMouth has been clinically proven to provide fresh breath for 12 hours after each rinse") stayed here for almost two years is beyond me. I think this would fall beyond the "Scope" of Wikipedia. I just hope someone is Listenine. Mandsford 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Searching PubMed individually for "SmartMouth", "TriOral", and "zinc chloride, sodium chlorite", I get only one reference: [12]. Location (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Advertising for a non-notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid arguments made on both sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident[edit]

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

Event fails notability guidelines. The article had been proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but that proposal was denied by an editor who felt that this event (with 17+ deaths) was notable enough. However, with coverage in only a single source, this event does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NNEWS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has been coverage in much more than one source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a tragedy, but it is not a history-making event. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be mentioned in List of road accidents 2000–2010 with a brief description, per our usual practice. As a look at that article will show, the vast majority of the fatal accidents on there do not have their own articles. Mandsford 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 17 deaths seems significant enough to be encyclopedic. The Arkansas floods killed only a few more and it pops up in the In the News on the front page. BIAS? hmmm... just because one happened in the USA killing Americans, while the bus crash were Iranians in the Philippines isn't a good reason to elevate one incident and delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of people who died or were injured in this accident makes it significant enough for an article. If such an accident occurred in the UK or USA it would almost certainly be kept (e.g. Sherman, Texas bus accident, in which the same number died), so there is no reason to delete this one (since Wikipedia does not discriminate by country). It is true that incidents in less developed countries are less likely to be mentioned on the internet. Frankly, so what? It doesn't make them any less significant. Deleting such articles is effectively a form of bias against less developed countries and we should eliminate such bias from Wikipedia. Also bear in mind that although it may have only been covered in a few sources on the internet, it will almost certainly have been well-covered in the Filipino print media, which is just as valid a source. The (apparently growing) perception that only internet sources are relevant is not an accurate one and is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman, Texas bus accident, the community agreed to keep that article because the incident had long-term effects on the regulation of the bus industry in the United States. There is no indication that the Cebu incident will have similar long-term effects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of road accidents 2000–2010 lists six accidents in the UK, USA and Canada that caused more than ten deaths. There are seven articles about individual road accidents in those countries between those dates. Not every 10+ death accident has an article (yet) and not every article is about an accident that killed 10+ people, but I think those figures are quite telling. It shows that most serious accidents in those countries do have articles. And in my opinion, serious accidents in any country should have articles, whether they have "long-term" affects or not. Wikipedia currently contains 28 articles about road accidents in the United States, which is nearly as many as every other country put together. I very much doubt that every one, or even most, of those accidents led to major changes in legislation or regulation. They are here because they are significant due to the loss of life involved, and the same applies to this accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - While the loss of life in all of those cases is tragic, that in itself is not a criterion of notability. The fact that other articles exist on similar topics is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. If anything, it points to the fact that those articles may merit their own AFD discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This accident has now been covered in multiple international sources, including by such agencies as the BBC. The death toll has risen to 21. I really don't think Wikipedia:NNEWS applies. Rereading that page (which is, of course, only a guideline in any case and is not set in stone), I can find nothing that would disqualify this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:Notability (events)#Depth of coverage. This section speaks specifically to the coverage that is needed in order to make an event "notable". Passing mention, even if the source is BBC, does not make for a notable event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage. "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." And as I have said, please also stop assuming, as you appear to be, that the internet is the only source out there. This the cause of much of the systemic bias against events which occur outside the English-speaking world. The print media is just as valid. Just because no such sources have been added yet does not mean they won't be, and lack of a range of sources is in itself not a reason to delete the article as long as the sources that have been quoted are reliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination and i agree on the comments of some users. - Gabby 22:56, 15 June 2010 (PST)
- You can't keep "per nomination". Fences&Windows 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the advice in WP:EVENT this nomination is too early. We cannot yet tell so soon after the crash if this is notable, so it should have been left to allow time for us to form a correct perspective. Alternatives such as merge should also have been considered per WP:BEFORE. Early deletion nominations are just as bad as people writing articles too early. The crash has been reported internationally and it has set off a debate in the Philippines about whether buses should travel along that route at all,[13][14] the bus company has been suspended and a government investigation has been launched:[15]. It's also not just a local event, it's an international incident: Iran is sending aircraft to pick up the survivors to return them to Iran.[16] There are indications that the event is indeed notable, so I give a provisional keep, with no prejudice against another nomination in a few weeks or months if it transpires that there was eventually only a brief spike of coverage and little secondary comment. Fences&Windows 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this is a somewhat backward interpretation of the advice at WP:EVENT. The problem isn't that the nomination is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable. The problem is that the creation is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable. It would be better to wait a time after the event to see if it has the required lasting effects to make the event notable before creating the article. If the article is created, and we wait before reviewing it, it will almost certainly fall between the cracks and never be properly reviewed when the time is right. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NOTNEWS is to prevent things from like ordinary football games from getting their own article. The coverage of this event in multiple newspapers clearly satisfies the GNG, in my opinion. Buddy431 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where multiple governmental probes are looking into an incident, the incident has moved beyond the WP:NOTNEWS classification, in my estimation. --Pink Bull 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Sushi (restaurant)[edit]

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

Originally posted last week, and I CSD'd the restaurant on G11. Speedy, however, was declined due to the fact that it's asserting notability. Article is written like an advert, and while it does tout notability (WP:PEACOCK comes to mind however), it only seems to have a couple of good reviews under its belt. In any event, it doesn't seem to cross the threshold per WP:N, and with the creator of the article declaring this to be notable, I'm calling it controversial enough for bringing it here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written too much like an advertising blurb, and while it does claim notability it seems to be deliberately vague ("appeared in many feature films" but doesn't say which ones) and a Google search does not appear to back up these lofty claims. For example, a Google books search for "I Love Sushi" +Malibu turns up just 4 brief book mentions, 1 of which is a fairly obscure travel guide and the others are business directories. That probably wouldn't be the case if the place is really a cultural touchstone like the article tries to claim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the article offers no references save its homepage. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CORP. Claritas § 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just looked at the website. This is for I Love Sushi in Seattle. Investigating... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just looked up on Google Maps (see this link). The only places called I Love Sushi in the Los Angeles metro area are near Beverly Hills and in Ventura. These are 30 minutes MINIMUM from Malibu. I call hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a hoax, but if it is there's a grain of truth to it. The Google Books search I linked to above shows there was, as of 1982, a restaurant called I Love Sushi at 29350 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. This is apparently a strip mall, and there's a place called Zooma Sushi there now. I also note this Twitter account which has a URL to an empty GoDaddy domain. My guess is it actually does (or did) exist, but the cultural notability claims in the article are made up or at least really exaggerated, presumably in an attempt to avoid a quick A7 speedy deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll let it ride then. Retracted speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified. Like others here, I tried to find any online evidence that this "world famous" restaurant in Malibu actually exists. I was unsuccessful. There are a ton of restaurants out there called "I Love Sushi" - Ventura, Costa Mesa, Washington State, New Mexico - all apparently unrelated to each other. But if the Malibu restaurant once existed, it apparently doesn't any more. And yet the article is written at least partly in the present tense. No references are provided. If the article isn't deleted, it should be userfied until these issues are clarified - above all whether it still exists - and references provided. The author is a single-purpose account, new to Wikipedia, and has an apparent conflict of interest (username = Baricool; founder of restaurant = Bari Alexander), so he/she might need some help if the article is to be improved or recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims of being world-famous are not backed up in books. Actor [{Charlie Sheen]] did refer to this as one of his favorite restaurants [17] in Malibu (where Charlie Harper lives). Mandsford 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CORP as no reliable sources can be found. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we WP:SNOW this one? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Andrews[edit]

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

Previously deleted in 2008, so may satisfy the CSD G4 requirements, but I'll let others who can see the old article make that call. I don't think the blog controversy makes much difference to his notability, which is minimal in my opinion. The-Pope (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, simply no notability. Claritas § 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N. Supposed 'controversy' is so minor that it isn't even necessary to bring up WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls a long way short of WP:GNG, WP:BIO.............. Nuttah (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. miracleworker5263 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly not meeting WP:WEB, even taking into account WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topbargains.com.au[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim to fame is Alexis ranks them 1009 in Australia. ttonyb (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent coverage not significant enough to pass WP:WEB.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only two sources I'd consider viable are Reader's Digest and news.com.au. The problem I have with these articles is that the website is only mentioned briefly, and these articles do not make this website the primary focus of the article - news.com.au only points at the website and mentions what it is amidst at least a dozen such sites, and Reader's Digest mentions it in conjunction with three others insofar as rebates are concerned. The others are just statistics and that is NOT enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mention in the only reliable sources that note its existence. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I created this page and seems like a whole war has started. My only concern is that standards being applied on deletion of this page are not applied on a range of other website pages in Australian Websites category. If having 35,000 members is not significant, nothing really is. The Feedburner RSS chicklet on the site independently shows 21,000 RSS subscribers on the site. A exactly similar site OZbargain.com.au is listed here under Australia with absolutely NO references at all - so much for the dual standards of some people here. This is not the Wikipedia I have known for years - please apply consistent and reasonable standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only passing mentions in sites cited. Featured in Readers Digest? "Other sites worth considering include: www.ozbargain.com.au, www.topbargains.com.au, www.rewardlover.com and www.moneybackco.com". I do agree that Ozbargains isn't much different and have tagged it for speedy deletion. But here Bill has doesn't mean Ben gets. Provide us with real independent coverage and help to change our minds. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozbargains appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia now. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a top 1000 site is significant. The site reach is broader than major banks based on Alexa ranks and has verifiable 20,000 RSS subscribers. I would consider that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.193.210 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per WP:ALEXA, "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it." In addition, the number of RSS subscribers has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that a large number of subscribers has no bearing notability. Also you must not look at media mentions or RSS subscribers or membership as isolated facts. When looked at them together, they show significance. However, I realize that no matter what, this will be deleted as it has become an ego problem for user Ttonybl who would like it deleted. I am new to Wikipedia but not has been the best of experiences. Thanks anyways for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that, despite being new to Wikipedia, you believe you know Ttonyb1 well enough to know that having this article deleted is an "ego problem" for him. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and in my experience one's comments are more likely to be taken seriously if one assumes good faith. Accusing editors of wrong intentions simply encourages other editors to see you as unconstructive. As for the reasons you give for keeping the article, it is certainly true that such matters as number of subscribers do have a bearing on significance in some ways, but they do not have any bearing on Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest at least reading the general notability guideline, and having a look at the guidelines on notability for organizations and companies and reliable sources to see what sort of thing is required. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is also relevant, but to be realistic there is a limit to how much a new reader can be expected to read and take in. If, when you have had a look at these guidelines, you can find the sort of evidence of notability required, I am sure that the article will be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am learning on use Wikipedia as I go. Have added a notability tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.17.56 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No worthwhile info to merge. Not significantly different from host article to create redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bejeweled Blitz[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no references, no third party sources but mostly per WP:NOTMANUAL. Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content into the parent Bejeweled article - this subtype of game doesn't need it's own page and redirect Bejeweled Blitz to Bejeweled. Exxolon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok if we keep it as redirect but which info is worth in there? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable series, but pretty much all the content just describes the various power-ups and so on, not really an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's not even worth merging this information anywhere. Wikipedia is not a game guide. I won't oppose to someone writing an encyclopedic version, but this is not acceptable, at least to my standards. –MuZemike 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent notability from the parent game, Bejeweled. One of many variants of the game. --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Spray[edit]

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

Reserve footballer, never made 1st team appearance, no international appearance, fails WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORTS), only general sports journalism, no independent in depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Per established consensus of football biographies this person does not meet notability criteria. ClubOranje^T 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no senior caps for Wolverhampton or any other fully pro team, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and the lack of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE by never making a first team appearance, else I would've already created such an article. Wolvesweb (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: was created by Alex latham (talk · contribs), so inherently non-notable. Fails ATHLETE, GNG, etc. Big Dom 06:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reimei no Arcana[edit]

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

Search for reliable third-party sources turns up with nothing. Non-notable manga by a non-notable author. No entries for either the manga or the author at Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Prod disputed by an IP with no given reason. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found. Search for licensor in French, Spanish, Italian & German returned nothing but scanlation related websites & blogs. Fail both the General Notability and Book specific guidelines. Can anyone search for possible Chinese licensor with "黎明的阿尔克纳" key word ? --KrebMarkt 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Richardson (Continental Army officer)[edit]

Listed as non-notable and unsourced for over two years. Per his entry on this page, his career was not particularly distinguished, and my further searches yield little more information about him. Magic♪piano 13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some content and references. Served in the Maryland General Assembly and was a Presidential Elector. Notable per WP:POLITICIAN.
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas § 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm on the borderline with WP:MILPEOPLE, the saving grace being his significant perticipation in notable battles. I'll not comment ignorantly on his acts as a politician. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His regiment was part of the Maryland Line, which played important roles on those battles. I'm not sure what to make of his role in them, though; his name, for example does not appear in a book-length treatment of the Battle of Camden. Magic♪piano 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if holding a seat in a state body is sufficient to confer notability, I'm OK with keeping the article. Magic♪piano 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Based on his military credentials, which are fairly insignificant, I was inclined to suggest deletion. It subsequently appears he might be notable for his political career. William Richardson (politician) (or similar) would be more appropriate, since that is why he is significant in WP. Place within scope of WProject politics, and beef up that aspect of his biography. this is another possible source. Gwinva (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Gwinva, particularly noting WP:POLITICIAN --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above from his political career alone there is scope to extend the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his political career. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 pride 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Bride of Frankenstein[edit]

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

Delete - clear-cut spam written by one of the writers of the article's subject. No reliable sources indicate that this currently amateur production is notable. Speedy denied for some unfathomable reason, prod removed by the article's author. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a significant and independent coverage about this musical, see The New York Times, Sea Coast Online, Wire, Broadway World etc. etc. The subject easily passes our notability guidelines. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@nominator: Please, don't forget to notify editors about your deletion nominations. In this case, you've nominated the article for speedy deletion, you've prodded it, and finally you've created this AfD. All that without a single explaining line on the talk page of a new user. COI or not, this is not very courteous behavior. Btw, the article is not a spam, even the initial version was rather descriptive and informative. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a long and detailed note on the article's talk page in response to the article's author. I have no interest in your lectures on courtesy. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can find a long list of independent reviews (links included) at the official website of the project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to verify WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Agrella[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From the claims it seems like he should be notable, but I can't find independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't find third party sources on him, but I know he's well known as a judge for several tournament circuits and in various martial arts circles. I'd vote keep if someone found an independent source showing notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Records[edit]

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

Record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed in the body of article, however as Infrogmation points out one is listed in a picture narrative.), is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed since creation for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kid Ory is already in the article (clearly the "none listed" claim above is false); even if no one else had recorded for the label I think that the Ory recordings would have been enough for notability. Shellac 78 era company. Infrogmation (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Kid Ory is listed in the narrative of a picture - NOT in the body of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the proposing editor serious in suggesting that a label founded by Nesuhi Ertegun and featuring Kid Ory and Jelly Roll Morton is not notable in itself?--Technopat (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes setting aside all the WP:Inherited claims - the question is does it meet either the WP:GNG and WP:ORG and as I cant find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject I am forced to conclude that it is not notable in it's own right. I am willing to change my mind if significant coverage comes to light. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that I've added a little context and a reference. Lupo 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is still lacking significant coverage in reliable sources though. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just added the first link. But you can find the same text in the Rock'n'roll hall of fame, or at encyclopedia.com. If you consider any of these "more reliable", feel free to supply one of these as the reference for this article. Lupo 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not mean to imply either of them were not Reliable sources - I just coped and pasted the source from the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of those rare instances where I decide to recognize that the GNG is a guideline, and not a policy. There is every reason to expect this article to be lacking in easily-available online sources, and at least one source now exists that lets the article pass the verifiable test. Insofar as it now passes verifiability (a policy), I'm more than willing to let it slide on GNG (a guideline) given its clear and inextricable association with some very notable names in jazz. Normally, I'm very much a fan of GNG and am rather strict in adherence to it, but exceptions have to be made if and when exceptions appear warranted and, to my eyes, this is one of those cases where an exception is very called for. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pretty famous: [19]. Getting this one deleted was a bad idea. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long history, notable founder, notable artists. Not sure what else one could expect from a record label, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makoa Kali[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although i'd change my opinion if more verifiable refs can be found. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find independent sources to show this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there do not appear to be reliable sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no reliable sources to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Records[edit]

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed), is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed since creation for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1) Shellac 78 record era company. I argue that record companies from this era tend to be notable in themselves, as making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, quite unlike how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in recent decades.
2)Important in the New Orleans traditional jazz revival era. If the New Orleans jazz revival is notable, this label is.
3) Notable musicians who Wikipedia has articles on recorded for label.

Infrogmation (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1) reasons stated above by Infrogmation
2) just added discographical data including two notable artists who recorded on the "New Orleans" label: Johnny Wiggs and Herb Morand

StefanWirz (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the rationale above. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When searching for book sources I primarily found short mentions in discographies and such, but there's plenty of it and it's reasonable to assume that some music press sources from the era aren't available online. I did manage to confirm that this existed at least from 1949 to 1978, and I just don't think a record company could last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul meng[edit]

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

Copy-paste from James Thompson (fighter) with minor Meng/Thompson changes. Looks like a hoax. No relevant Google hits for "Paul Meng" and "MMA". Lupo 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The lead image in the infobox that User:Paulmeng uploaded at the Commons was from here and showed James Thompson... (deleted at the Commons as a copyvio). Lupo 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. Check out the references - they're actually for James Thompson. andy (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Can't this be speedied? Astudent0 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Records[edit]

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, made shellac records in the 78 era; hardly as insignificant a task as being a "record label" in recent generations. Recorded notable artists who have articles on them in Wikipedia. Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorded notable artists" that is a claim of WP:Inherited notability; and if as you claim they are notable for other things, where is the significant coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even has two references now, which isn't bad for a stub :-) Lupo 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is not independent, and the other is only a mention - so still fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Infrogmation’s rationale above. As the proposing editor has copy and pasted the “accusation” from the other several articles on records he/she has proposed for deletion, I reckon I can just copy and paste my earlier objections: Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability. --Technopat (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search demonstrates substantial coverage, and hence notability.--Pink Bull 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Records[edit]

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, listed in Brian Rust's American Record Label Book; subjects which are have entries in standard specialty reference works are legitimate topics for Wikipeida. This is a pre-Great Depression shellac 78 record company. I additionally argue that record companies from this era tend to be sufficently notable from this alone, since making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, closer to being an automobile company than the very different situtuation of how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in more recent decades. Having historic record label listings online is a help to 78 collectors. Infrogmation (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the rationale given at the other record articles for AfD the proposing editor has copy–pasted his/her objections to. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Book search demonstrates substantial coverage, hence notability.--Pink Bull 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally a low-participation AFD like this would be relisted, but in this case I think it's safe to let silence speak consent. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family[edit]

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

Largely OR and SYNTH stuff, with no particular encyclopedic value. It is more an exercise in "proving" that the Greek Royal Family has some sort of legitimate right to the Greek throne, even though their claim never rested on this fact. Given the names present in the list, most European royals share in some Byzantine descent, and in no way is the Greek Royal Family any more "Byzantine-descended" than say, the British Royal Family... Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byzantine ancestry of Norwegian Royal Family for similar cases. Constantine ✍ 13:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with all the arguments above. Just about all modern European royalty has Byzantine ancestry one way or another. This article is pointless and makes an implicit claim (that there is some special connection between the modern Greek royal family and the Byzantines) that is false. Not to mention that it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --macrakis (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some article about Byzantine ancestry of European royal families, if there's anything useful. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Constantine ✍ 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job search outsourcing[edit]

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

Plain and simple: this article is WP:ESSAY. The topic itself does not seem to be encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 12:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research that borders on patent nonsense, probably someone drumming up business for the "Five Phase model" they pulled out of the air: By using the Five Phase model for job searching (Strategy/Writing, Search, Apply, Interview and Negotiate), this specifically refers to individuals outsourcing their resume/cover letter writing, search for online job leads, or job application process. The last two phases, Interviewing and Negotiation, do not lend themselves to having someone else or technology perform their functions and cannot usually be outsourced, though for some negotiations outsiders such as agents or attorneys are sometimes contracted. Thus, job search outsourcing companies tend to focus on the first three. As a connoisseur of this kind of text, I have to say that the article's observation that interviews and negotiations cannot be automated or delegated is a ripe example with a pungent and intense bouquet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: Hi, I am the creator of this page. Obviously I am new to Wikipedia, but I work in the human resources field and these innovations are currently shaking things up quite a bit. My other page - Jobserf - was originally contested but I fixed it. Is there a way I can fix this one, too? I can remove the "Five Phases" content and reintroduce it later on when I have a source and an explanatory image. I am not "drumming up business." Job Search Outsourcing is changing the HR industry, and it's getting more and more press every month. It is a variation of another practice (noncontested), Recruitment Process Outsourcing. Whatever you'd like me to fix, I will. Thanks, ResolvedElement (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:POV. No references to establish WP:N or even WP:V. If the author wants to keep it, find mainstream media outlets that cover the concept and avoid headings like "Acceptance by Media & Experts" (POV and terrible grammar, although the latter is not an issue here). Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G7, author-requested) by CactusWriter. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rajat Mitra[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography (see page creator) where the editor in question has no other edits. This isn't necessarily speedy A7 because there is a small notability claim: Dr. Rajat Mitra has been given the following awards for his work with survivors and their rights: Ashoka Fellow in 2003 Nasscom Award for enhancing rights of victims in India 2010 Edelgive Foundation Award for enhancing women’s rights in India 2010. Despite this "claim" of notability, this doesn't appear to be even close to enough to warrant this article's existence. Further, the article reads slightly like an advertisement for the doctor, and is not encyclopedic in any way. — Timneu22 · talk 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerd Kjellaug Berge[edit]

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

unsure of notability or precedents, elevating for discussion. Seems like a person doing a job. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, she has an article in a large and credible paper encyclopedia, which is already cited in the article. Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - comment above was made by article's creator.--Maashatra11 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independently of who wrote it, she still has an article in a paper encyclopedia. I didn't write that. Geschichte (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, seems like a few Norwegian sources kicking about on google. Perhaps a few could be added to show why she isn't merely a common or garden hotelier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.94 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument now qualifies as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist, meets WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more precise to say "one source exists", see WP:BASIC: "..If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability..." I don't know how "deep" is the coverage of the person in the source provided; there is only one short paragraph in her subject, but nothing that seems "substantial". What really bugs me is how her notability shoud be asserted from the article. Is being vice president of some organisation enough to make her notable according to the policy? Maashatra11 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough sources. Dewritech (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clarly notable. Has an entry in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia and has held the second-highest position in Norway's dominating employers' federation. Has 301 hits in Atext, which searches Norway's leading newspapers, from 1984 to 2010. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lead didn't reflect her major claim to notability, which is the national positions held; I've amended that though I'm not sure I've used the best wording, not being a business person. She's also received a medal from the king; I've added that and a language award. There are a plethora of news sources on her, going well beyond press release or local pride stuff. More of them need to be added; I've made a start to indicate what's out there, but she passes the threshhold in terms of coverage as well as in terms of distinction. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep:User:Maashatra11 to acquiant himself with deletion criteria.194.80.52.158 (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw, given the additional info and refs by User:Yngvadottir. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Rifleman 82. Non-admin closure. shoy (reactions) 20:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium lasering[edit]

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

Unverifiable, as the source cited is not valid and no other sources are available. User who created the article has been blocked as sockpuppet and has created hoaxes with other accounts. snigbrook (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no mention of the alleged phenomenon found on Google. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to prove WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Fampas[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP challenged since 2007. I have been unable to find reliable third-party coverage. Deskford (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete. I tried a news search under her name in Greek Εύα Φάμπα, but couldn't find much more than what appear to fairly trivial concert announcements. This one is from a fairly reliable source, but is basically a press release. There is this brief article about her in a print magazine. But I can't read Greek, and it doesn't work with Google translator. Willing to change my mind if someone comes up with better sources and/or translates the latter article and finds something significant in it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. She may very well be the national treasure the article's rhetoric suggests, but we cannot verify. A brief library search revealed only a couple of trivial mentions in China Daily of some international shows. She seems to have several records out, but I cannot verify that they are important or that they have charted anywhere. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is very jacked up compared to what articles should be like on wikipedia. Its format is simly irritating, especially the discography section's format. Some places in the article seem to make unnecessary lists, i.e. when the article provides information for many of the nations she has performed in. If a person or band has performed concerts in all those places, but is not signed, does not have any discography, and does not appear to have any mainstream recognition, the chances are against them having a long-standing wikipedia article. To sum that point up, the touring isn't independently notable, yet is slightly over-emphasized in this article. Worst of all, while there is an external links section, no cited sources are provided, thus not properly backing up the information supplied on this article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While agreeing with you that it should be deleted, this should be done solely on grounds of notability. I've seen plenty of articles for notable people which are equally badly written and formatted and even more full of hype. All it took was a liberal dose of the "red pencil" and some easily findable references to fix them. Unfortunately, this one isn't fixable because the reliable sources simply aren't out there, nor are notable achievements. Voceditenore (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, that is a good point about the formatting of the article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, can't find anything useful out there. One thing: the article was created by The-GJst (talk · contribs) in 2006. That user has a total of 5 edits the first of which was the upload of the photo of Eva Fampas (Edit summary: Self-made Photo Image of the Greek guitarist Eva Fampas, created in November 2003. This photo also exists in the URL http://www.evafampas.gr which I own.), two were edits to this page and the last two were edits to Classical guitar adding Eva and one Dimitri Fampas to the lists in that page. IMO, this is either autobiography/COI or possibly promotion by a zealous fan --Jubilee ♫clipman 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add my voice to the chorus who have failed to find useful references, with one exception: [20] supports the claim that she is the daughter of the Dimitri Fampas whom you mentioned, who has an extensive but also pretty much unreferenced article. Without advancing this idea as a formal vote, I'm thinking the best solution here might be to delete Eva's article but incorporate whatever seems most salient and defensible into the one about her father, adding redirects as appropriate. Oh, and as an aside, at the same time perhaps it would be well to replace his infobox with the more streamlined affair that recently emerged from dicussion of *that* issue. Drhoehl (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge. He article needs a massive clean up, anyway. He is undoubtedly notable and I suspect that sources for his article will be less elusive than for his daughter. Replacing the infobox with {{Infobox classical composer}} is a good idea, also, except that he isn't notable as a composer... That's an another debate, though (hopefully not as painful, this time!) --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fence Records[edit]

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

Record label, who may have some notable acts, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be notable, as there are several sources available: The Scotsman:[21][22][23], The Guardian:[24][25], The Skinny:[26], The Herald:[27], The Times:[28], and The Independent:[29]. Many of the sources are primarily about King Creosote, or have no primary topic, but the coverage is enough to satisfy the relevant guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Try a Google News search, for instance.--Michig (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the many sources above indicate, Fence is at the centre of a culturally-notable phenomenon in Scottish music. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I agree that association with notable acts alone isn't necessarily a claim to notability here, I agree that the coverage shown above is enough to push it over the threshold. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. Fence is an extremely important and influential music collective, as shown through media attention. Giant Snowman 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to determine WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Tupu[edit]

NOTE: This article has been stubbed on WP:BLP grounds. You may wish to review the full version in the article history before commenting on this AFD, the link is here.

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

Non-notable 15-year-old amateur boxer. A speedy was correctly declined on this first version because of claims of championships, but I PRODded it because searches (see talk page) found nothing and because a good deal of the text had been copied from David Tua. Extensive editing from an IP toned it down a bit, and another user stubbed it leaving only a statement that Tupu is an amateur heavyweight boxer. For this AfD to consider, I have restored the IP's last version, which still makes inflated claims like a bronze medal at the "2009 Summer Olympics". Also relevant is a message on my talk page from the IP: "Hi well Stevie Tupu is an Amateur Fighter out of Austrlaia and Im just helping him to get notice more." Sorry, 220.101.113.25, that's not what Wikipedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have competed at professional level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.94 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article claims he has had a professional fight, but (a) it gives no detail or reference to verify that and I can find none, (b) the lead sentence calls him an amateur boxer, (c) how likely is a professional boxer aged only 15? JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I searched for potential references, there were none to verify any title won. This would have been sure to be in a Google search result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:GNG and WP:V. Could be a hoax - considering no ghits, and previous outlandish claims. Claritas § 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; current version could be speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original likely to be a hoax, the original version had importance claims so not speedied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Adabow (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—non-notable unreferenced BLP. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 10:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax or not, a search through NewsBank for Tupu and boxing found nothing in the last few years, (with no Stevie Taupu hits at all) and NewsBank contains most of the major newspapers in Australia, including the local ones. If he'd had any success I would have expected at least some mention there. Seems that he's at best insufficiently notable. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this person exists. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solo programming language[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language still in development. Author removed prod with rationale:

I am Johnny Starr, this is my programming language and It is almost ready for release, I am planning on adding a link to my site (which is also under development) please do not delete my page :)!

which reinforces that this is not something ready for an article here. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:MADEUP, WP:COI. I42 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to publicize the programming language you just wrote. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. GregJackP (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason GoGo[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable Canadian artist who wrote his own self-promoting vanity page, filled with such gems as calling himself a "modern-day Andy Warhol." Time to send this article into the dustbin. Laval (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely, utterly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The two sources provided in the article do not mention this artist and most google news hits appear to be for a baseball player named Jason Gogo. There is absolutely no significant coverage and if we were to remove all the puffery in the article we'd be left with the stubbiest of stubs. I can't believe this has flown under the radar for over a year. freshacconci talktalk 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-fates[edit]

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

Contested prod. Neologism and probable conflict of interest. No evidence that this is a notable concept. andy (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism and original research: Micro-fates is a recent concept that reconciles determinism and freewill. Though there are causes for everything human beings do, the ability to see alternate possibilities allows people to choose. So, even though countless subconscious and external causes may determine why we make a choice, some people have the foresight to see the whole gambit of possibilities.... A micro-fate is therefore when an individual is guided by causes (biological, social, circumstantial, etc.) and these causes influence the decision he or she ultimately makes. I was so hoping for tiny, tiny versions of Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos to appear nere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos? :D andy (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN and NEO. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, self-referenced per WP:SELFPUB. Latest in a series of self-promotional pages and edits: see creator's talk page. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 (no indication of notability) by Metropolitan90. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlenderBuildxxx[edit]

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

Hoax, unsourced, RS issues, not for stuff made up or non-existent, etc. Open The Windows, sir! 07:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Dickson[edit]

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

Keith Dickson appears to be your basic moderately-successful member of the community: lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, elected to various minor local positions, failed candidate for the California state senate. None of this reaches the level of notability for a Wikipedia article.

In the event that the article is kept, it will need a good deal of pruning: it currently reads like a promotional puff piece. --Carnildo (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, subject "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". In addition, AFD is not for cleanup. Not sure why the nominator has not at the very least even attempted to discuss concerns on the talk page, where I would have happily done my best to address them. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS. It's all puffery. The guy has some mentions in local coverage relating to purely mundane news about school board management and what not. It is not significant coverage about the person. ETA: Also, why was the actual second nomination and discussion deleted and not mentioned at all in this third one?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator used the deletion page to attack the BLP in his nom statement. An admin deleted that prior page per Wikipedia:CSD#G10, and warned the nominator for violating WP:BLP, specifically, WP:BLPTALK. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand the puffery concerns and while it definitely meets the General Notability Guidelines it is "on the border" where I could understand an argument against it (the GNG gives a presumption of notability not a guarantee). That said it is very well referenced and I'm comfortable with it being on the project. James (T C) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable. The content is very poor, and needs fixing - but that's nothing to do with AfD. Chzz ► 02:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS, and, with all due respect to Cirt, the article is a classic example of WP:MASK. I'm tempted to also cite WP:BLP1E, but the subject is not even notable for one event. The article reports no "claim to fame" or reason for notability, and merely pieces together tidbits of information gathered from a campaign website and three small newspapers (i.e. The Press-Enterprise, The Valley News, and North County Times) who are reporting to voters the subject's views in the context of local election coverage. Addressing the current arguments for "keep", it should be noted that guideline never trumps policy: WP:NOTE/WP:GNG are only relevant when a subject passes WP:WWIN/WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. This is a very ordinary individual. His career in the USAF is the equivalent of your every day local lawyer that practiced law within a local community. The only difference is Dickson handled contract law which means he probably saw big cases but it wasn't like people flocked to him ala Perry Mason. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Counter to nom , I don't believe it is a WP:MASK ATTE...(damn caps lock)mpt. The sources I saw had him as a primary figure, or at least a main secondary interest in the article, and there were 50 secondary sources. he is not notable for just one event, but secondary sources have been covering him before his attempt to gain the senate seat. WP:BLP1E in the past has always been that a person is cited for one single event across several sources, this is not a case of this the secondary sources are spread out over 13 years, 27 of those 50 sources occurred prior to his senate attempt.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—he doesn't seem to have done anything which qualifies him as notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retired soldier who lost a few local elections. WP:GNG does not apply (if it is met, notability is presumed, not established) because none of the claims that are backed by sources lift the subject over the notability threshold. --Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment: It would have been nice if the admin who deleted the ongoing AfD copied over all votes that did not violate our attack policies, or at least notified all people to !vote again. I spent 10 minutes wondering where my previous comment went. --Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An editor blanked this page, on (I think) the grounds that some of the material was scurrilous. I'm not very happy about this, and I'm not at all clear to me that that is kosher. A number of editors' comments and their research and work was lost, and If I were them I don't think I'd be very happy either. An admin could restore the comments, but this would take some effort perhaps better spent on articles, but at any rate the closing admin should at least view and consider this material. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 50 sources! This article may not be on the most famous politician in the state, but it is well-written and deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Coffepusher brings up some good points above; bottom line is that Cirt's effort here meets all relevant Wikipedia requirements. Jusdafax 14:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable either as a military member or a politician or in general. Failed primary candidate. Sure, there are a ton of references, but most are purely local, namely the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Valley News. (Jusdafax was impressed that there are 50 sources, but 38 of them are from the Press-Enterprise.) He got a couple of trivial mentions in the North County Times; he had one report in the regional paper-of-record, the San Diego Union-Tribune, when he declared his candidacy; he seems never to have garnered a mention in the super-regional paper, the Los Angeles Times, even though his district is in its coverage area. Also, almost all the press references refer to the election rather than to the person (he declared his intention to run, he made a campaign appearance, etc.); this distinction has been used to delete failed candidates in the past as showing that they are not notable aside from the election. As noted above, the article is highly promotional. Example: the twice-repeated assertion that "Dickson beat Joel Anderson in votes cast in the Republican primary in Riverside County, California, but Anderson won the election itself; with Dickson receiving 20 percent of total votes." Sorry, he didn't "beat" the other candidate by doing better in one area of the district; he LOST the primary election, rather badly. Like others here, I am annoyed that my previous comments disappeared into the void when the page was blanked. I am curious whether Cirt was the administrator who did that; if so I feel it was inappropriate, since Cirt is the author and primary editor of this article and thus is not neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [30]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that. I also see that you were the one who brought that situation to the BLP noticeboard, and you also solicited for someone to close the debate here. I do feel that your heavy involvement in the closure process was inappropriate, seeing that you are the author and prime defender of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you fail to also see that it was an issue involving wanton violation of WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that was your argument. As I recall the previous deletion discussion, it took you four or five days before you noticed the "wanton violation of BLP" and started using that as an argument for blanking the discussion. My opinion stands. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assumption. I had wanted to avoid that discussion, but after consultation with admins realized it needed to be addressed due to the BLP issue. The ruling that it was wanton violation of BLP was not my wording, though I do support it. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly satisfies the general notability criterion in a rather overwhelming fashion. Content-specific guidelines don't supersede the general notability criterion. If there is substantive non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, then a topic is notable - he doesn't lose his notability because he was on the school board or in the military. --B (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if his "notability" is limited to his own community? Doesn't there have to be some wider notability than just coverage in your local paper? --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:B is absolutely correct, notability does not decrease due to an individual's positions from some sub-guideline, especially if the general notability criteria is eminently satisfied. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to DeleteKeep Yes he fails Politician/Milperson or whatever that subcriterion is, but he does fulfill the primary requirements of Notability which means keep. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right. There are articles explicitly about him in reliable notable sources, so while our secondary criterias may not recognize him, we have to pay attention to the coverage he gets elsewhere..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor B have addressed the question of notability of a purely local nature. If a person is known only in his/her own community and receives no significant coverage outside of that community, does that really qualify them as notable? --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:N or WP:BIO that would lead me to believe otherwise. Nothing in WP:RS says it doesn't count if it isn't the Washington Post or New York Times. As long as it's a legitimate paper covering him and not a school newspaper or some guy's blog or some such thing, he looks notable to me. --B (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think carefully about this. If you accept purely local notability - just within the local community, doesn't even have to be regional - you are opening the door for wikipedia articles about every minor local official in every small town in the country. Not to mention every failed political candidate, every local high school principal, every executive of a local company. I have been mentioned several times in my neighborhood paper for my volunteer efforts; I'd better get busy writing an article about myself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the paper has substantial coverage of the high school principal or failed political candidate (beyond simply reporting their existence or their one-off comment about some situation) then maybe they should be considered notable. --B (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the quarterback of the high school football team? My local paper gives the team at least two articles every week during football season; generally the quarterback (as the most important player on the team) gets a half-dozen paragraphs or more. Does the resulting 25+ articles covering him mean he satisfies the notability guidelines? --Carnildo (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the requirements for GNG again. They are:

significant coverage --- Yes this criteria is met, multiple articles that appear to be more than trivial in nature.
reliable--- Yes, this criteria is met. A respected regional newspaper.
sources ---At first glance ok.
that are independent of the subject--ostensibly this one is met as well, although one can raise the question that a regional/city newspaper might over hype local personalities and thus might not be fully independent.
presumed---well it is presumed, so I guess it is met.

When you look at the criteria for sources, it reads (in part), The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In other words, all of those articles from the The Press-Enterprise have to count as a single source---not 38 independent sources. Get rid of them, then you do not have much left over, in fact if you count them as a single source, then you really are forced to fall back on WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN where he fails.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my !vote was removed when the first version of this nom was deleted, so I'll re-register it. For those claiming that the number of sources verify the notability of the subject, let me remind you that the sources used to justify his notability need to be about the subject himself, not the school board/election/whatever else he's been a part of. I don't want to minimize Cirt's work, but I just don't think Kenneth Dickson's accomplishments warrant an article. If he wins a major election at some point, all well and good, the article can be recreated. But he hasn't yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Parsecboy above, especially considering my vote was deleted and not re-added. Skinny87 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, because I think I was wrong. In the debate Gwen Gale deleted, I began by !voting "delete" on the grounds that notability isn't inherited from the election to the failed candidate, and then I retracted that, saying something to the effect that I wasn't sure the nomination was in good faith because certain comments on the Wikipedia Review led me to believe that there was an anti-Cirt campaign in progress. I still think there's an anti-Cirt movement, but I now think that Herostratus is uninvolved in that and the last debate was meant in good faith, though the wording was unfortunate.
And that's all from me at the moment—this isn't in any sense a !vote. For now, I'll simply note that there seems to have been a commendable amount of energy gone into adding references since the last AfD. The rest of what I have to say belongs at the inevitable DRV rather than here.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has some notability, and I admit there is some coverage around, but basically, he doesn't quite meet WP:GNG, and definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas § 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Surely the GNG is about significant coverage in reliable sources. Which of the many sources are unreliable? Or are you saying that the coverage in them isn't significant?—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability presumed ≠ notability met. And there's still WP:ROTM, although only an essay. The Weather in London has far more sources and an incredible influence but still no article on its own. --Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The person fails the WP:GNG notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish WP:POLITICIAN, but a careful reading shows it is a WP:MASK for non-notable community service.— Cactus Writer ^(talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that coverage only in a couple of local newspapers counts as significant. To the extent that 'wikipedia notability' is meant to reflect 'real world notability', there needs to be some sort of coverage outside of the local area. As MelanieN mentioned above, you would expect him to have received some sort of coverage in the LA Times, if he were notable. Quantpole (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he has coverage in some local newspapers, but he also has print coverage from the The San Diego Union-Tribune. When you're talking Riverside County, California, it seems that the San Diego paper will be less of a local paper than the Los Angeles Times would be. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment San Diego is less than 88 miles from March Joint Air Reserve Base and within the Tribune's media footprint. When I was at the base when it was active duty, we used to laugh that the Press-Enterprise was the un-official "official" extension of the base newspaper because we constantly saw their reporters with our Public Affairs Officer. As a WikiProject California member, I am familiar with the JRB, its local media and even this individual. As per Balloonman's observation, this AfD candidate does not get significant press coverage. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the article about Dickson in the The San Diego Union-Tribune - I cannot find it in this article. There is only a reference to Joel Anderson titled "Anderson announces state Senate run". — Cactus Writer ^(talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are looking at the large number of sources and not realizing that if you ignore the local paper, that his coverage is trivial at best. The one's from the San Diego Union Tribune appear to be one's about the person who won the election...and at best mention that he defeated Dickson.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it doesn't give Dickson significant coverage as well? That's the only San Diego reference that I see as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I read the article and it doesn't cover Dickson. — Cactus Writer ^(talk) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on the San Diego Union Tribune website and searching for Kenneth Dickson gives only 2 articles, both only mention Kenneth Dickson's election result. Thus, again, it fails WP:POLITICIAN. The often cited local source is mundane coverage of local schoolboard politics. Simply not notable acccording to WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for his two passing mentions by the San Diego Union-Tribune is that the seat he was running for - the 36th state senatorial district - includes portions of both Riverside County and San Diego County, and thus falls within the U-T's coverage area.[31] [32] --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the initially impressive look of this article, on closer inspection it appears to fail our notability guidelines. He's only locally 'notable', and there's nothing in the sources provided which indicates he's received the level of significant long-term coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing how the individual's WP:GNG standing has been debunked, as previouisly mentioned, individual presently fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:MILPEOPLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overwhelmingly trivial mentions in exclusively local media. If this person meets notability guidelines, we'd need a page for virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominating this article for deletion the first time around was one of the first times I got involved in an XfD, because the article is so outrageously overblown and pufftastic that it's almost a self-parody. His kids' high school grades? His former boss said that he "did a 'great job'"? "He was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?'"? The guy is a local school board member, fairly average attorney, and political primary also-ran. Like anyone who is on a school board and runs for a local political job, his local papers have occasionally mentioned him. I give Cirt credit for writing the best-formatted, most thorough, best-MASKed article imaginable on this generally unknown local personage. Still, just as we do our best not to let a crappily-formatted article from a poor English speaker sway us toward deletion, the underlying (non-)notability of Kenneth Dickson cannot be affected by purple prose or by fifty footnotes to minor local press clippings marshaled in two columns. Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president." I.e., not particularly notable within the context of an encyclopedia of global scope. I'm sorry so much work went into the article, but that's just the cost of doing business. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Glenfarclas - despite the article's size and number of references Mr Dickson doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. I note in particular that the references are to local newspapers and generally aren't about Mr Dickson in particular. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obamaism[edit]

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

This term seems to be a neologism and non-notable. The provided footnotes do by no means establish any notability and the ones actually using the term might not be reputable (about.com). Given the lack of notabiliyt this page could also be considered as political smear. Note that there was anearlier RfD that at the time was a close keep, but since then the Redirect was later turned into this article. --Kmhkmh (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bushism yields 99,100 Google results. Obamaism yields 132,000 Google results. Please see the previous AFDs of Bushism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not about Google Hits but reputable sources. For Bushism there's a large variety of reputable sources including whole books on subject and not just Google hits mostly consisting of arbitrary websites, blogs or soundbites by comedians. So you need to compare the sourcing of both articles carefully - for instance the Time Magazin speaks of Top 10 Obama Gaffes and Top 10 bushisms, i.e, it uses the term bushism but it does not use the term obamaism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources for Bushism do not explicitly use the term either. This article was based in format on Bushism. Note that the Bushism article also uses About.com as a reference. I beg you to find another term with over 100,000 g-hits that lacks a wikipedia entry.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what "format" the article was based on is completely irrelevant. I mean as far as the format is concerned you could set up any "politician's name +ism" as an article and claim it's based on the "bushism format", that's no argument at all. As far the Google hits are concerned as I mentioned above for WP only reputable sources matter and whereas the Bushism clearly has convincing number of them the Obamism article still seems to have none. In addition it might be wortwhile to note that obamaism is used for completely different meanings than rhetorical or languages gaffes contrary to bushism, i.e. the Google hits for obamaism are not only not reputable for the most part, but there's also an overcounting. From my perspective, no reputable sources => no WP entry, simple as that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those used in the article, there are many reputable sources: [33], [34], [35], [36] among others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the book Obamamania! The English Language, Barackafied--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. [Updated below.] The weird thing here is that I agree more with the nominator than I do with my fellow editor recommending "keep". I believe the neologism is notable but not as it is defined in the article (i.e. as parallel of Bushism). Most sources using the term "Obamaism" refer to the political ideology of President Obama, not his verbal gaffes. As Kmhkmh has pointed out, the references in the article do not explicitly refer to "Obamaism" so they should be struck. If "Obamaism" does not parallel "Bushism" in the real world, then "Obamaism" shouldn't parallel "Bushism" in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be expanded to be more accurate. Whereas the ideology, which accounts for some of the results, has its own article, it should be mentioned but not be the main part of the article. In the context of this article, the term should refer to three things: Misstatements and gaffes, phrases used by the president and words or phrases created from "Barack" or "Obama".--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

words derived from barack or obama (for instance obamamania) are completely different from obamaism in the sense of bushism (verbal gaffe), therefore they do not belong in an article called obamaism. If you want to redefine the term Obamaism as "everything (etymologically) related to Barack Obama or his gaffes" you would need proper sourcing for that as well, but frankly something like that starts imho to look like a political hack job.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a rewrite. Redirect the title to Political positions of Barack Obama. Move the content to Obama gaffes or something similar. Location (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no reliable sources, per kmhkmh, for this meaning of the word. on the subject of bushism: no comparison. there are dozens of books published with "bushism" in the title. There are numerous reliable sources commenting on President bush's idiosyncratic language use. there are no reliable sources commenting on President Obama's language use in a parallel manner. the term Obamaism is used almost exclusively to refer to the parareligious fervor found among his supporters, such as here: [37]. I am undecided about whether this meaning for Obamaism is notable, but there is no doubt that the article as its written is utterly without sourcing of note. sources provide by william saturn are from partisan political sources and other unreliable sources, and the book obamamania is silly made up words, not his gaffes. another source is his hitting his head. yes the word has some use in parallel, but nowhere near enough for notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Gaffes of Obama's Presidency. I don't see anywhere near enough use of the term "Obamaism" to warrant its use. The Time source is the only really good one and it talks just about these gaffes. That might be ok for a sitting president, but the concept doesn't need to be expanded beyond that point (we don't need a Joe Biden gaffe article, for example). Shadowjams (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The title confused me too; I also thought it referred to his philosophy. If we decide to not keep, I suggest a soft redirect to wikiquote:Barack Obama. I have no opinion on the notability of this term. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a title Obama gaffes since "Obamaism" more often refers to his supposed political views than verbal slips, per Google News search[38]. "Bushism" on the other does commonly refer to the numerous verbal slips. Undecided on basic notability of a listing of verbal slips. Should we list them for every president or world leader who ever misspoke? Edison (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per that vote above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other articles such as Bushism into a single article, and redirect any "name+ism" format articles to it. There's already a List of Presidents of the United States by nickname article concerning that particular content; do we need to elaborate on the speaking styles of every single U.S. President?Toad of Steel (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, both this article and Bushism contain much in the way of NPOV and possibly BLP violations... Toad of Steel (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Wikiquote. This article and Bushisms are, when you boil them down, a list of quotes. Movementarian (Talk) 12:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially original research. There is a severe lack of reliable sources that use the term 'Obamaism' to refer to a gaffe by Obama, or discuss such a concept; still less that have any kind of detail beyond a list of quotes. Yes, there are a lot of Google hits for 'Obamaism', but most of them do not seem to be using it in this sense - they are using it to refer to Obama's political ideology (which, before I read this article, is what I assumed it would be about). Although what about X? isn't a good argument in any case, note that the Bushism article has considerably more reliable sources about the term itself than this one. Robofish (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. While Bushism has 17 sources over a period of eight years (most of which are not reliable), this article uses 9 reliable sources from a period of only two years. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that almost all of the Bushism sources use the word 'Bushism', while only three of the sources here actually use the word 'Obamaism'. The former is a notable word, the latter is not (yet). Robofish (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given do not establish the phrase as notable or common enough to rate an article. Even the author of the article seems unclear what the phrase means, since after defining it as "gaffes (similar to Bushisms) made by U.S. President Barack Obama that include unintentional factual inaccuracies, politically incorrect statements and misstatements, as well as other comments widely covered in the media," the author then goes on to cite a whole different meaning, "phrases referred to as Obamaisms, where coined, which were adapted from his first and last names "Barack" and "Obama". Examples include Barackstar, Obamania, Omentum and Post-Baratic stress disorder. Slate magazine complied these into an online encyclopedia and came out with a book in June 2008 titled Obamamania!: The English Language, Barackafied, which listed and gave definitions to several Obamaisms." If even the author can't decide what the phrase means, it is clearly not notable enough to be included here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources used made the decision, that's what guides the inclusion (since everything is referenced).--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply referencing something is not good enough to establish notability. You need (several) reputables sources, that show that the term is commonly used and not just the creation by an individual journalist or comedian. Furthermore those source need to use Obamaism in the sense of verbal gaffe or better explicitly discuss or define that usage. You cannot simply arbitrarily compile sources that somehow may relate to Obama or use expressions derived from his name. WP is an encyclopedia not random trivia collection for Obama (or any other politician).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid academic terminology used for significant topics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial charm[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, just a common two word expression. The article notes that some bad people have it, but that's because when good people have charm it is not superficial. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep: This has to be the most ludicrous Afd I have ever come across. It has key academic importance. It is a key characteristic of psychopathy and some personality disorders. It is referenced in, for example, psychopathy, Hare Psychopathy Checklist, The Mask of Sanity, narcissism and Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. The other aspect of superficial charm, which I suspect the proposer has overlooked, is that it is one of the most common psychological manipulation techniques used by many people to encourage positive reinforcement. This side needs to be developed more in the article. For example, superficial charm is a very common technique used by salesmen, especially high-pressure salesmen and con artists. It is associated in some respects to flattery but superficial charm has a more specific meaning. i notice that "superficial charm" has 1,470 references in Google Scholar, 60,700 non-Wikipedia entries on Google in general (most of the time in its psychiatric context) so it is clearly notable and certainly not a nondescript expression.--Penbat (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the expression have a special meaning in psychology, beyond its everyday meaning?Steve Dufour (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although "superficial" and "charm" are everyday words, i dont think that "superficial charm" is particularly an every day phrase as it basically describes a psychological phenomina specific to psychopaths and a common psychological manipulative strategy.--Penbat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say keep, but that would be superficial. What nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.94 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider the term notable enough for an article: its use in the Hare Checklist justifies elaborations. I do not consider it a question of whether the term is used with its "common" meaning. Instead, in the long run defining criteria will have to be elaborated in the context of the theories that use the term. What is more, the aim of an article is not just clarification of the meaning of terms, but also informing about notable uses of a term. Indeed, the existing article does little in that direction. It lacks definition, clear differentiation of fields of application ("psychopaths" vs. salesmen), references etc. However, in principle I see no WP:FAILN. Why not a {{notability}} instead? --Morton Shumway (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep For now - seems to be used in some other pyschological artiles and could possible expand to cover its subject more thoroughly. I note that there is no direct article on 'charm' yet as I would have said merge. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Superficial charm" has a specific focus as an insincere and manipulative form of charm. The phrase is also partly self-explanatory. The focus would be completely lost if it as merged with "charm", if that article existed. "Superficial charm" has distinct characteristics. The article is still stub status and has the potential to grow quite big, it is just a matter of digging out good sources.--Penbat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the charm of a good person different from the charm of an evil person? I personally don't think the charm is different, it is just used for different purposes. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought I had already explained the difference. Whether or not superficial charm can be merged with charm is something that can be thrashed out over time on Talk:Superficial charm. There may be several pros and cons to consider. It is probably a long term discussion as charm only currently exists as a DAB page and a merge may not necessarily be viable anyway.--Penbat (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you did it went over my head. I also wish the article would explain. Right now it just states that certain people have superficial charm, without explaining what that is. Trying to be more clear. I agree with all the statements in the article and I agree that they give important information. I do not want to take any of this information off of WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per leevanjackson. I am surprised how many notable psychology terms have been nominated lately for deletion. What's going on? I thought we were a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary there should not be articles on terms, only on the things and ideas that the terms name. In my opinion, in this case there should be entries in Wiktionary for "superficial" and for "charm", as there are. From those it is obvious what "superficial charm" is. Then WP articles on the various psychological disorders should mention that one symptom is superficial charm. It's possible that in some cases a symptom could be bad personal hygene. This should be noted. But we don't need an article on "Bad personal hygene". I don't think so anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and expand: The brief stub about "Superficial Charm," a phrase that has been in daily use for decades by mental health professionals as a formal diagnostic criterion for sociopathy and anti-social personality disorder, especially when related to criminal recidivism, is useful to me. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist is a widely used, well-established diagnostic tool that lists "Superficial charm" as THE VERY FIRST of 20 test criteria that can form the basis for a diagnosis of psychopathy. The stub on "Superficial charm" would be more useful if it were expanded, not deleted. The fact that some Wikipedia readers may not find the term familiar, comprehensible, or personally useful - or that it is comprised of two common words that can be found in any dictionary - does not justify the article's deletion. Court-qualified witnesses and social service providers employ the term "Superficial charm" to identify a type of behavior that frequently occurs together with certain specific other behaviors such as Self-aggrandizing to form the basis of specific mental health diagnoses in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or ICD-10 classification of mental disorders. The fact that a Google search for "Superficial charm definition" produces 1,140,000 hits - almost all related to the professional literature of psychiatry - plainly indicates the frequency of use, and implicitly the usefulness, of the phrase in professional mental health circles. The fact that some Wikipedia readers, or even mental health professionals, may not share a universal consensus on exactly when "Superficial charm" is pathological, and when it is not, is not a reason for deleting an article about it from Wikipedia. The phrase "Superficial charm" appears in other Wikipedia articles, as well it should, and as it surely will continue to appear. The ongoing use of the term and the effort to carefully apply "Superficial charm" as a mental health diagnostic criterion makes the article about it all the more important. The article should be expanded, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.160.112 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not impressed with some WP:PUFFERY and format, but WP:N appears establshed and referenced (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ki Whang[edit]

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

Kim Ki Whang lacks notability. Does not meet wikipedia biographical standards. See A7. Mephisto Panic (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MANOTE. The article claims that the subject contributed significantly to the development of Tae Kwon-Do, but I have not yet found references to support this. Janggeom (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak Delete~~ I think some of the claims made might show notability. The problem is I can't find independent sources for them. Astudent0 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm changing my vote based on the new sources found. BTW, Thardman22, AGF. Astudent0 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I commented in the DRV for this that there was a Washington Post obituary that might constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. I've blown $3.95 on the obituary to find that it contains two sentences, the first of which says he died. No delete or keep !vote from me, just a note to say I'm no longer confident of this article's rescue worthiness. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion history: please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 7.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search is difficult because the subject was mainly active in the pre-internet period. We need to decide if Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source. If so, there's his obituary in the issue for Jan 1994, which is certainly in-depth coverage. The Jan 1970 issue contains only a couple of mentions, but the Jan 1977 issue also has what I would call in-depth coverage. However, I'm aware of no other sources, and the search is frustrating because there also appears to be a physician by the same name who's published some scholarly articles.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was amused to read from his obituary that this is apparently the man who taught Chuck Norris to fight. :)—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't find sources that show he's notable. The aforementioned obituary in Black Belt doesn't show it--especially when it has claims like the Chuck Norris one. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source, then there's easily enough to show evidence of notability. The obituary says: ... Among his better-known students were ... Chuck Norris ... Pat Johnson ... (etc.) ... his All-American Invitational Karate Championships ran for 25 years and was one of the most prestigious martial arts events on the East Coast. Notability is not inherited from Chuck Norris to Kim, so that in itself is insufficient, and the All-American Invitational Karate Championships don't appear notable either; but the obituary goes on to say that Kim ... served as Chairman of the US Olympic Taekwondo Team in 1988.
Besides that, notability is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage is certainly significant, and there is more than one instance of coverage, widely-spaced in time. Therefore if the source is reliable, then Kim is unquestionably notable. The question hangs on whether the source meets WP:RS.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say Mkativerata's findings pretty much confirm non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at deletion review, copied here: Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing? The article was almost completely unsourced and had the tone of a eulogy, rather than an encyclopedia article. (A lot of it actually reads like it was copied from an obituary ... "And that is how it should be, according to a kindly man with a subtle sense of humor who survived and prospered through a lifetime ..." doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article.) --B (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve and/or continue research It seems that one horn of the debate is whether Black Belt Magazine is a reputable source. Please see the Black Belt Magazine site's Archive page The 54th Issue of Black Belt was Dated June 1968 (which mentions a tournament organized by GM Kim). As a monthly, this would suggest that "BB mag" has been around since 1965 at least. I don't know if anyone will accept the inference that a publication with a 45-year run is "verifiable". Also, did nobody bother to read any of the references cites on the suggested "revision to keep"? For instance, notable grandmaster Kim Soo gives significant detail on Kim's life and career in Korea and subsequent importation of Korean Martial Arts to the US, in his document (PDF) "Sabang-Kwon Hyung: Master Kim Ki-Whang's Legacy" (Soo, Kim (dictated to McLain, Robert))? The references on that revision may provide the independent and verifiable resources needed.

Grandmaster Kim is frequently referenced in their pedigree of study by people who rose to prominence in the time-frame of 1960 to 1980 or so. Notably, Albert Cheeks and Mike Warren, not to mention Jim Roberts Jr. Thardman22 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References: please remember than in the 1960s-1980s Koreans in America put family name last, thus "Kim Ki Whang" becomes "Ki Whang Kim". Chronology of Tang Soo Do in the U.S.A. "1963, Ki Whang Kim comes to US(Washington D.C.) as Chairmen of TSDMDK in US appointed by KJN Whang Kee". Please note that "TSDMDK" is "Tang Soo Do, Moo Duk Kwan", a very specific subset of Korean Martial arts and a specific school of promulgation of those arts. Seen in this context, with GM Kim being sent to the US as a result of political changes in Korea, and at the behest of Moo Duk Kwan grandmaster Hwang Kee, the notability of "Ki Whang Kim" (Kim Ki Whang) in history of Korean Martial Arts in the USA becomes more apparent. I should also mention that my position is biased as I was a student at his Rockville, MD (USA)_studio. Yet I believe that despite any perception of personal bias, verifiable sources I have provided and will strive to additionally provide, should overcome any perception of bias. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional to the point of "philosophy section irrelevant": from What is Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan? "First it is important to understand that Soo Bahk Do is the Art and Moo Duk Kwan is the style. Soo Bahk Do is the technical side, and the Moo Duk Kwan is the philosophical side of "Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan." Thus, Kim Ki Whang's leadership of Moo Duk Kwan in USA is of paramount importance in his role in promulgation of specific aspects of Korean Martial Art to USA. Although GM ("Grandmaster") Kim was a combat master of Tang Soo Do military style, he adhered to the dictum (see reference, immediately above) "Learning fighting techniques without a strong philosophy is to burden society with more dangerous people [...] We use Soo Bahk Do to realize our full potential and emphasize "Virtue in action" demonstrating courage, discipline, confidence and humility through our sincere efforts in training and our behavior towards others. " Thus, GM Kim's philosophical approach to martial arts training isn't just relevant, it's fundamental to the article, and to the history of the man, and to his teachings. He developed exceptional capacity to fight... and also promoted calm judgement and a preference for peace. Contrast and compare to other sensei teaching comparable arts specifically promoted to pugilists. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Additional Notability: please see YouTube video United States Naval Academy Karate-do Team at timestamp 6:19 "Passing on Ki Whang Kim's Stick". US Naval Academy Instructor Master John Critzos II evidently considers GM Kim Ki Whang to be "notable", at least sufficiently so as to make him part of a ceremony of the martial-arts department of US Naval Academy Annapolis. I suggest that disputants in this debate may wish to contact him via e-mail and accept his opinion on Kim Ki Whang as "authoritative". Also to be considered potentially 'authoritative and verifiable" would be the US Naval Academy Karate-Do Team website detailing "pedigree" and lineage of martial arts instructors and styles: [...] Toyama Kanken, founded the Shudokan at Nihon University in Japan. Toyama believed in paience, and espoused the concept that if one's hand goes first, he should withhold his temper. If one's temper goes first, he should withhold his hand. It was he who taught Korean-born Ki Whang Kim, who eventually became the first non-Japanese captain at the Japanese institution. His heritage adds a Korean mix to our karate-do style, which has already been influenced by the Japanese and Chinese tradition. Ki Whang Kim then transferred his knowledge to John Critzos II, who established the Naval Academy program in 1992 and has continued to train and develop Midshipmen. I would think that the fact that GM Kim is regarded highly as the sensei of the primary instructor for the US Naval Academy, would speak to his "notability". Additionally, this is secondary verification to other sources, that Kim Ki Whang was instructed by Shudokan GM Toyama Kanken at Nihon University Japan. Furthermore, this speaks to the philosophy section, of preparation and capacity for violence set alongside with intentions for restraint of violence. I urge strong consideration to preserving a Wikipedia article on the history and legacy of Ki Whang Kim, or maybe the US Naval Academy martial artists club will be convinced to also chime in and offer reasons to leave the article intact. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thardman22 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is still with a lack of reliable sources. John Critzos was his student so he's not an independent source nor is the web page of the organization Kim was involved in.Astudent0 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Black Belt Magazine isn't a credible source? Kim Soo isn't a dependent or descendant source, not associated with Kim other than as peers in the field? Also, I'm not citing Critzos as a source, I was citing the US Naval Academy presentation on YouTube. That's not a reliable nor verifiable source? Thardman22 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cited Critzos as a source when you said "Critzos II evidently considers GM Kim Ki Whang to be "notable"." Youtube is certainly not a reliable source. Black Belt Magazine isn't necessarily a reliable source because many things in it are submitted by interested parties. For example, the other day I was looking at a cited source in BB and it turned out it was a list of instuctors, but anyone could submit a bio. I've seen too many non-independent articles in BB to always trust it as an independent source. Astudent0 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You declare that YouTube isn't a reliable source. But this is arguable: what of reliable sources accessible through YouTube? Clearly the origin of the video posted to YouTube is US Naval Academy. Are you suggesting that the US Naval Academy suddenly become incredible if their production is distributed via YouTube? That's like saying that CNN isn't credible because a direct reporting segment was copied to YouTube. It's like saying that archives of real-time broadcast are not credible because they are archives, and not vaporware broadcast. It's like saying recordings aren't credible because they aren't a broadcast that nobody remember seeing. You are splitting hairs, so to speak, in a very silly way.

The problem with the Naval Academy source is that it's still coming through his student's orgainization--hardly an independent source. The articles mentioned farther below, however, make a good case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you appear to be presenting a determination to disallow Black Belt Magazine as a credible source. Yet you don't offer any source that you could consider credible; you simply deny that Black Belt Magazine could be a credible source. Offer a definitive alternative, please. What will you accept? Will you accept ANYTHING as a credible source in this discussion? Or will you deny that it is even possible, in this pre-internet time-frame, to have any credible source at all? What will you accept? Or are you simply only about deny deny deny? For this discussion to be reasonable, and not a travesty, there must be a source you can accept. If you can accept no source as credible, this discussion is pointless, and I declare that you are Kim Jong-Il and demand my five guineas. (British TV Humor) Thardman22 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A useful addition to a neglected area on our encyclopedia - notability seems clear within his area. Being subject of published biography - with ISBN (even if shared) might be enough. - Korean Martial Artists: Kim Ki Whang, Sang Kee Paik, Tae-Hong Choi, Yoon Byung-in, Books, Llc ISBN-10: 1156885752 ISBN-13: 978-1156885758 (Msrasnw (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That particular book is a print-on-demand title, very recently issued, and I've been unable to locate any information about the publisher.—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - is it one of the funny books made from Wikipedia articles? - (If so sorry) (Msrasnw (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Have you any proof that this is the case? Or are you just wasting people's time with frivolous and ill-advised attempts at comedy? If so, why did you bring it up in the first place? But this discussion is getting far afield. If people are willing to spend U$3.99 for a HighBeam account to read a two-line Washington Post obituary, perhaps they'd be interested in spending a comparable amount to research to telephone the few remaining living humans who are themselves notable, who could testify to the notability of Kim Ki Whang.

What Is Necessary to Determine Notability?: This is an honest question. Clearly I am biased, and as clearly, others also seem to be biased to declare this article to be deleted. Tell me: What will suffice? I don't want to waste my time, or your time, pointing to sources that won't be believed. What do you need? If it's simply the case that some of you won't accept anything, tell me, I won't waste my time, you can take up the issue with people other than myself. Or they will take up the issue with you. We don't want to do this in any way other than through acceptable standards of scholarly research. Yet we believe that the life and career of Kim Ki Whang is in fact both notable and formative of the Korean Martial arts in the US especially in the 1960-1980s timeframe. What do you need to accept this article, or some revision of it, as a verified and scholarly reference? Please understand that the audience to your arguments may be larger, and more interested, than you would easily believe. Please be specific, and please assure us that if we satisfy your demands -- however ridiculous or extravigant -- we shall have a permanent article.

Wikipedia's definition of "notability" can be boiled down to "evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources." Note that "significant coverage" doesn't mean that we have to find a whole article or whole book-chapter about Kim. It only means we have to find some kind of coverage that's more than just a passing mention. "Reliable sources" are sources that are independent of Kim, and have some form of editorial control or oversight, so we can presume that the facts in the source have been checked by someone. In practice, "reliable souces" (plural) could mean just two sources, and one of them (Black Belt Magazine) is already noted above. I don't think anyone will show that Black Belt Magazine is not reliable.
So the upshot is that we have to find one more reliable source. The one Msrasnw found could be sufficient, if Books, LLC is a reputable publisher. It will not be sufficient if Books, LLC are a vanity publisher, if they're the property of the book's author, or if there's no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking. Alternatively, we could dig up some material on Kim in a print source. If you can find such a source, please tell us the ISBN, the publisher, and the page number.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other refs?: Is this listed anywhere?

Corcoran, John. "Memorial for Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim (1920-1993)." Inside Tae Kwon Do, 3:1 (Feb. 1994), pp. 56-59. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Burdick, Dakin (1997) Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Volume 6 Number 1 - 1997. Taekwondo's Formative Years [39] Has stuff from the Corcoran article - including "study karatedo at Nihon Universityin Tokyo, where he captained the team and was nicknamed “Typhoon.” " (Msrasnw (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. The Journal of Asian Martial Arts is a proper publication with editorial oversight that meets WP:RS, and the coverage in the article you linked is more than trivial. I think that's sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Significant coverage in two reliable sources is proven here and here, and this decisively refutes the notability argument.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Reference: US Taekwondo Grandmasters Society 4th Annual Hall of Fame Awards, 2009, "Pioneer Award" section detailing career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thardman22 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've crossed out my earlier vote. I believe that the latest sources mentioned do show notability. I also believe the article needs a significant rewrite, but that's not an AfD issue. For what it's worth, I agree with Astudent0's earlier comments about notability and Black Belt magazine. I too don't view everything in Black Belt as reliable. My personal views on sources and notability--the internet makes it easier to find info, but independently written articles and books are certainly valid (perhaps even preferable). Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basically per S Marshall: significant coverage in at worst two independent reliable sources, so appears to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments, especially from earlier participants in this AfD, on the sources pointed out by S Marshall, i.e., [40] and [41]. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course I would say this. And AStudent0: thanks for the AGF. Folks, please see the sources mentioned above under "keep". Many seem to be of acceptable type. If notability was the main issue here, I think that notability has been established by persons other than myself. Are there any other issues? Clean up is also a good idea. For example individual claims might need to be individually cited. Note that there are perhaps 4 to 6 "varafiable and notable" sources but all of them contain a wealth of information that covers only a limited number of aspects. The article as originally written attempted to combine those aspects and sources with a global re-write. I realize that my anecdotal recollections are not considered evidentiary for the purposes of wikipedia. Perhaps the general tone isn't what is preferred. If anyone else wants to handle a re-write to improve tone, please do. Yet again I argue for the retention of some article on Kim Ki Whang. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Explosion (Eastern Michigan University)[edit]

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

Non-notable campus event, see, e.g., lack of any results at Google News or GNews archive. PROD contested with the talkpage rationale, "there are very few references to Detroit Hip Hop artist Ro Spit, and because he is the subject of my search, I think that it has value just because it mentions him." Really? The article says nothing more than that he "will be providing intermission entertainment." Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If Ro Spit is notable, maybe a separate article should be written about him instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I ran a few Google searches, including this one, but found no independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability of this event. All the sources given in the article are press releases, schedules or announcements from EMU, and are not independent. It doesn't seem like any secondary sources have taken note of this event. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 11:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MissBitz's statement on the talk page: the deprod rationale is a very good piece of evidence for nonnotability. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. fails N and GNG but appears to pass music by publishing 3 albumns and possibly by playing a festival (although that needs clarfication). Its already had one relist and the consensus isn't entirely clear. V is overarching so lets hope that some sources appear soon otherwise the next listing could be the end. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Based Lifeforms[edit]

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

Non-notable band CosmicJake (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are albums by the above-named band, and do not meet WP:NALBUMS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk)
Week keep. They released 3 records on Ultimae Records. See Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Point 5: The label was found in 2000 and released some bands with blue links in wikipedia. Also, point 1: The critics [42] of the album is by an "Emeritus" of Sputnikmusic.--Cyfal (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see three blue linked artists (none of whose articles show why they are notable) can count as "a roster of performers, many of which are notable". The Sputnik thing looks like a good start for coverage in Multiple independent reliable sources. more needed. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a very important band in the psytrance scene, have played at all the major psy festivals, including Glade Festival.--Tris2000 (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, this should redirect to carbon based life . 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St Mary's Academy (Rawalpindi). There is no clear consensus to redirect or merge but its obvious we can't have two articles with the same name so I'm closing this as redirect and leaving it to editorial discretion what (if anything) gets merged Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's Academy, Lalazar, Rawalpindi. (SMA)[edit]

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

Non-notable, and reads like an advertisement for the school. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the page is a bit of a mess but I'll clean it up. This is an important high school with several important alumni. Sources are available online and no doubt more can be found by local searches. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails to provide "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area" (in fact it does not provide any evidence of coverage. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ The school exists [43], and it is a secondary school; secondary schools are pretty much always regarded as notable for Wikipedia purposes. The list of distinguished alumni alone should establish the school as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Delete/Merge or Redirect/Merge (see below), since I just discovered this school already has a fully fleshed out article, at St Mary's Academy (Rawalpindi). Haven't changed my opinion that the school is notable and deserves an article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "fully fleshed out article" lacks any "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Why do you think it's notable? --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By long tradition/consensus here at AfD, high schools are presumed notable - as are degree-granting colleges. See, for example, the discussion here. As far as I know this is not official WP policy written down anywhere - it may have been a proposal that did not get codified as official policy - but it has been the consensus at every deletion discussion about schools I have seen: high schools are presumed notable (the assumption being that reliable sources can ALWAYS be found for high schools); middle schools and elementary schools have to demonstrate notability via outside sourcing, otherwise they are merged to their parent district. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW where did you get that quote that includes the phrase "outside the organization's local area"? I would like to be able to quote that myself in some discussions I am involved in, but I haven't seen that phrase in Wikipedia policies I have read, and it isn't at the link WP:NRVE that you supplied. Never mind, I found it at WP:CLUB - although it seems to be talking about local units of a national organization. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite! Guidelines need to be applied flexibly according to circumstances and an independent organisations, that receive coverage regionally, as high schools invariably do, are notable. In any case, for Indian sub-continent institutions, that rarely have much of a 'net presence we should await the finding of local sources to avoid systemic bias. The reasoning for keeping high schools is at WP:NHS. Then finding of a somewhat better page by MelanieN was an excellent catch and the two pages should, obviously, be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's not much to merge - the existing page seems to have most of the same content as this one. After any unique content is salvaged, this page could be either deleted or made into a redirect (although it strikes me as an unlikely search term).

Comment. This entire discussion is moot because a similar article (with a better name) already exists at St Mary's Academy (Rawalpindi). Accordingly, I have tagged this article for speedy deletion under the applicable criteria. It would be unfair to delete the other article based on this discussion because editors to that article were not notified of the discussion. Besides, there seems to be no consensus for deletion, as this is a similar to US high-schools, which are generally considered notable for a stand-alone article. --Pink Bull 23:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I deleted the speedy request; I don't think speedy is appropriate when the article is in the middle of an AfD discussion. We are close to consensus here on delete-and-merge or redirect-and-merge. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Knight in the Congo[edit]

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

Relisting a deletion I mistakenly closed in 2009. No opinion on outcome. TeaDrinker (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back Story I closed the first nomination of this article as a copyvio. Recently, the author of the article pointed out that the book had copied the content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I therefore undeleted the article, however since there was an AfD in progress, I have re-opened the issue. Previously the nomination was by Timneu22 (talk · contribs) for reason I can see no notability about this topic, and it is an orphan article. I take no position on the deletion other than owning up to my mistake. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. Even the few GBooks hits refer back to WP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hezekiah M. Washburn. Location (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. There was a book. That's about it. The book had a sales ranking at Amazon is #3,701,636 and no reviews that we could find. The subject/author was deleted in a separate AfD as not notable. Tough to see how a book about a non-notable person, by a non-notable person can be seen as notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection about deleting for notability issues here (from the original author). I have merged the info into an "Autobiography" section in the article-under-construction for the author here (in my userspace). Thanks, TeaDrinker, for helping me out with clearing the copyvio matter up. --Dygituljunky (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nom. Where is the notability? — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Load Williams[edit]

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

Though the article does state why the individual is notable, and so prevents it from being speedily deleted, its single sentence provides little information and may not actually be notable. Quinxorin (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all the relevant points at WP:BIO. I cannot find anything about this individual other than what is mentioned in the article. (I am generally OK with a redirect in cases like these.) Location (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One voice role ever,[44] fails WP:ENT. Lack of any coverage fails WP:GNG. And considering the number of other individuals who have given voice to Shredder over the years,[45] a redirect for this person's one-and-only role ever, is perhaps unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even worse, it appears to be a one episode appearance as Shredder. No usable ghits, beyond confirming the credit exists. No hits in gnews archives. Fails BIO, ENT, and GNG.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted as advertising. Evil saltine (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Berkowitz[edit]

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

Not quite blatant enough for a speedy but sure looks like spam to me. Eeekster (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Evil saltine (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all the relevant guidelines at WP:BIO. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-necked[edit]

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

Partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

--JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same kind of partial title match list:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as partial title match lists, as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since you are the nominator, I have line-struck your "delete" vote as redundant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorrad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nominator is not prohibited from !voting, I have unstruck my comment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no need or reason for these pages to be deleted. They are useful disambiguation pages. Gorrad (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name" -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. None of the articles are ambiguous with the adjective. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These bird are known as the "blue neck" in the short form. The Wikipedia rule is: "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote says "keep all" but your explanation only (possibly) applies to Blue-necked. But your explanation really only indicates that they should be added to Blueneck, and then only if your claim that they are known as the "blue neck" can be added to the articles where the other Wikipedia rules of reliable sourcing and verifiability can be applied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we should also keep in mind the eventual impact of deleting or not deleting this: readers who enter "blue-necked" in the search box and hit "Go" (or Enter) will land either on Blue-necked or on a search results page. In this case, since there appear to be no actually ambiguous articles, the search results seems to better serve the readers, and that will only come up once the partial-title match list is deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted, as per JHunterJ's valid objections, immediately above. This isn't the way partial title searches for articles are accomplished on Wikipedia; we really need to keep to our consistent, longstanding policy on this. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above two. David V Houston (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ – I don't see a reason to change the longstanding guideline about partial title matches. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The AFD was closed as delete by Kurykh on 18 May 2010 [46], but per the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 5, I have restored the deleted articles for the time being and have relisted this AFD for another seven days discussion. –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Longstanding consensus, and with the advent of the pull-down search option, a timewaster for readers. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, agree with Abductive in particular. Shadowjams (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Longstanding consensus is exactly the opposite of what Abductive suggests. There have already been two discussions about disambiguation pages of this type and both lead to the preservation of the pages in question. These two discussions can be found here and here. These four pages are disambiguation pages listing animals. Birders in particular commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone, therefore there is a need for disambiguation. Disambiguation pages do not require reference sections; written sources demonstrating that "colour-part" names are employed for a given bird may be difficult to find, but the employment of such names is a widespread convention that is not restricted to specific birds but is generally applicable. Dusky, List of things described as painted, List of things described as pied, The Lurking, List of titles with "Darker" in them, List of placenames containing the word "new", List of places beginning with Costa, Designated, and On wheels are not comparable to these "colour-part" disambiguation pages because the others are partial title matches while the "colour-part" names are not; they are terms used independently of any further title. The pull-down search option is insufficient to perform the required disambiguation for two reasons. The first reason is that not all the options will be listed. This is because there are too many entries to fit in the pull-down menu (there are 14 entries on Blue-spotted) and also because some of the entries start with "Blue-spotted" and others start with "Bluespotted" and, depending on whether the space or hyphen is included or omitted, a user will be presented with only the article titles that do the same. The second reason is because the pull-down menu provides no context; disambiguation pages provide a short summary of each article that has an entry, but this is not possible in the menu. "Colour-part" disambiguation pages play an important role on Wikipedia that cannot be performed by the pull-down search option. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pull down menu seems to ignore hyphens. For example, typing blue ring yields Blue-ringed octopus, Blue ring anglefish, Blue Ringtail, Blue-ring Danio, Blue-ring topsnail and Blue-ring. It even sorts the list by popularity, so the topmost is, of course, the venomous octopus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "problem" of the pull down menu presenting different results between bluespotted and blue spotted can be approached in several ways. First, if the usage in the real world always is Bluespotted stingray, then that's what people will type. If Bluespotted stingray and Blue spotted stingray are both used, then create a redirect. Worrying about people who have typed only Bluespotted and not kept going with grouper or whatever is underestimating their intelligence. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with relying on the pull-down menu to perform the functions of a disambiguation page is that many users search Wikipedia in ways that do not make use of the pull-down menu. This occurs on slow computers, many handheld devices, and external search engines. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per JHunterJ and Abductive.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive; these are not useful, let alone necessary, and instead only get in the way of valid searches. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive. While it is true, as stated above, that birders and similar use colour-part names, they do so not as "a widespread convention" but only as informal shorthand, in contexts where there is little or no likelihood of confusion, and thus no need for disambiguation. Two birders might, say, refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar), as distinct from, say, "the white-chinned" (jacamar), when there is no ambiguity, but they would be most unlikely to refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar) in situations where there was the possibility of confusion with the blue-necked lory. The argument that there is a need for disambiguation fails to recognise that colour-part names are only used in restricted contexts; in a wider context they are not used independently of the rest of the title. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most people (including those preferring to keep) felt this list included too many schools, but no options were presented by what criteria this list should be cleaned up and if this was even possible. The deletion rationales were usually based on policies, whereas at least three (the majority) of the keeps referred to NOHARM and INTERESTING. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional schools[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List which fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The information in this list should be sourced for verification, and per WP:BURDEN, sources should be cited per each entry, and nothing's been done to this effect since the last AFD (3 years ago, ended with no consensus). There's no apparent inclusion criteria either. Claritas § 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:V because nothing is sourced and hasn't been for years, and fails WP:NOTDIR by such a huge margin that, if certain theories of the structure of the universe are correct, it actually loops around and fails it from the other side. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable plot elements central to notable work are a suitable subject for a list. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. If not all the schools are central, that can be discussed on the talk p. of the article. The sources in most cases seem remarkably obvious, but it can certainly be made explict that South Park Elementary in a plot element in South Park, or University of Suffolk in Nice Work DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DGG made a last-minute comment in favor of the article, will relist for more consensus. JForget 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stupid, a waste of time to even read much less contribute to, only a few are notable, every story involving young people is going to mention the name of a school, etc., etc. .... but having said all that, "List of fictional whatever" articles are common on WP, no reason to delete this one, sources would not improve it and finding them would be a further waste of time. Is someone going to start a list of fictional kitchens? Wolfview (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you agree with all my reasons for deletion, but just want to keep it because "it doesn't do any harm" ? Claritas § 06:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't do any harm. Some people must have thought it worthwhile or else it wouldn't have been created and added to, whatever you and I think about the topic. Wolfview (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not necessarily object to "List of fictional whatever", however, WP:V is not optional. If someone wants to userfy the list and add some references, I would probably recommend "keep" next time around. Location (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article would be improved by finding secondary sources that say the kids in such and such story went to such and such school. On the other hand it would be if it was limited to cases where the school itself has an article here. But that doesn't seem to be how WP works. Nobody's going to hang around and remove trivia. Wolfview (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on your thinking here. Are you suggesting that WP:V or WP:RS are optional in this case? Location (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Each work of fiction can serve as its own source, in a trivial case like this. What would be the benefit of finding a second source that said the kids in Little House on the Prairie went to a school named whatever? Wolfview (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the benefit of a citation for an entry is to verify that was is stated is true. Most of these cannot be verified just by looking at the relevant wikilink. In fact, none of the first seven schools listed are mentioned in the articles to which they are linked. I didn't check beyond that. Location (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I find the list rather entertaining and an interesting overview of the naming conventions of mass media. Even though secondary sources may be hard to come by, I vote to keep it. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP's purpose is to provide data for interesting overviews. Wolfview (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't be verified without synthesizing original research from Different primary sources. No secondary source addresses this topic directly and in detail. Keeping in mind that AFD is not a vote I found Wolfview to provide a strong argument for deleting, not keeping. (By the same token, if I said "amazing article that meets all policies, but I hate it, delete it", I think that would lend more to a consensus that the article meets all the policies.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argument by Shooterwalker and WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT (yeah, I know the latter is an essay).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One list. Hundreds of entries. Zero reliable sources. Extremely unlikely that reliable independent sources exist for 99+% of these, and even in the unlikely event that someone had the time and energy to clean it up and find the few sourcable ones, it would only be a matter of time before it was back to its present state again. A well-written prose article on how schools are treated in fiction would be a great article (the closest thing we have that I know of is School story), but this as it stands is unsourcable trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of trivia. Can never be complete, since nearly every book, film, TV programme, cartoon, has a school somewhere, and would serve little purpose if it was complete. Gwinva (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Gwinva above; it's just a bit too indiscriminate and unfocused (as I have already said with similar now-deleted lists). –MuZemike 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a notable fictional topic, and the list, if properly referenced, made verifiable and limited to notable entries, makes perfect sense. It is not an indiscriminate subject nor a random intersection (as fictions like Harry Potter or South Park indicate). The current state of the list is not an argument to delete, because deletion policy mandates not to delete if the problem can be solved by editing -which is the case here. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing gained by destroying it. It isn't harming anything. Those who worked on it, don't need their work destroyed, simply because someone doesn't like it. If you sincerely doubt any of the information listed is 100% correct, then just Google for the name of the series and the name of the school, and something will surely pop up. You don't need sources listed for every single thing. Dream Focus 06:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of notable fictional schools (e.g. Hogwarts) is not in question, so WP:MADEUP does not apply at all. That said, widespread treatment of fictional schools and, in general, of school fiction as a subject exists, see [47], [48], [49] , [50] , [51]. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st, 2nd, and 5th of those are very impressive references (I'm not that sure of #3 &$). I think this shows that Gavin's argument above is a wild guess, and essentially equivalent to I NEVER HEARD OF IT. How can one assert that it has "never been used outside WP" without looking? and using the same delete rationale seems to be used indiscriminately for many articles, apparently without caring whether its true for false. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional schools is far too general and too broad in scope have any value. (WP:SALAT) Fictional schools are a dime a dozen and exist in just about every fictional work dealing with children, especially those set in their own fictional universe. The list itself is nothing more than trivia based on primary sources and does not fulfill the encyclopedic purposes of a list (such as an index of articles). If we created wikilinks using the names of the fictional schools, the majority of them would be redlinks with no hope of having articles per the inclusion criteria. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another argument based merely on issues (i.e. non notable entries) that can be dealt with editing, not deletion. We have almost 40 fictional schools deemed notable by the community. This sounds just about the right number for a list -not hundreds, not two or three. Again, there is nothing indiscriminate, the inclusion criteria is very clear. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are those schools really notable? Because looking at five random articles, none of them have a singe reliable third-party source between them and would definitely fail WP:NOTE. At best, you may have 5 or 6 notable fictional schools. That is not enough for a stand alone list, but good to include in an article about schools in fiction, which this list is not about. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Panagiotou[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N. No secondary coverage of the only alleged notability (the TOSF), nothing on Google News or Books, web hits are incidental, authored by the subject, or Wikipedia mirrors. Unsourced for three years. I have my doubts about whether TOSF is notable, but even if it is, I don't find anything (secondary, independent, reliable) to base a separate article on subject on. Joe Decker (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes any of the criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. A closer look should be given to the articles on Telescopic Observations Strategic Framework (for which this subject is the only reference) and Telescopic Observations. Location (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Reason promotional tour[edit]

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

The article is basically a 222-place list of tour stops. Aside from the intro, the article has no prosaic content. It also violates Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that a band went on tour to promote their album is not something of lasting importance, even if it was reported on by the media. Wolfview (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, a tour could rise to the level of notability (imaging some Rollin Stones comeback tour or some such) but this tour isn't it. de Bivort 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours as there does not appear to be independent coverage of things like artistic approach, financial success, etc. that would establish notability. Tours are assumed non-notable, and articles that are nothing more than lists of dates and support acts are often deleted. Disclaimer: I recommended to Cymru.lass that she take this to AfD, after a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music in which I noted that the article's sources are extremely poor & most would not pass muster with regard to reliability. I would also recommend adding to the nomination The Sufferer & the Witness Tour and Siren Song of the Counter Culture Tour, which have identical problems. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I'll check those out, Illa. Thanks --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demon in the Bottle (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). One possibly notable actor Ashley Tesoro but even that article lacks reliable sources. Triwbe (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage of the film. No evidence that it passes WP:NF. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual UC Berkeley Sociological Research Symposium[edit]

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

Non Notable Event Codf1977 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage found for this symposium. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an undergrad event. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find coverage to pass notability requirements Chzz ► 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any discussion of a rename or redirect can take place on the article's talk page. . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 ghallooghaaraa[edit]

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

Gross diatribe, fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Soman (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, was this a re-creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Sikh Holocaust 1984? --Soman (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not quite; that one was a bit more coherent than this, and the texts are not the same. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An opinionated screed, a content fork, and the title is meaningless in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsalvageable POV fork. Salih (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Useful information. 209.251.200.243 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable. Also it is NOT a fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, It appears that some editor has reffered to 1984 Sikh riots only. 3rd Sikh ghallooghaaraa is a very big term used for massacre in Punjab - close to 1000 Google hits.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~— DawnOfTheBlood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Salih (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

A bad faith tag added by User talk:Salih to discredit Keep/Retain Votes as he has cast 'Delete' vote. Please see my pround multi-article editing history. I believe that respected User: Salih has discredited his own 'Delete' vote by openly lying in an important Wikipedia discussion.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DawnOfTheBlood to cast aspersions on your credibility as an editor; it was a mistake on my part. But, I still stick to my delete !vote. Salih (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a more easily understood title; the existing title is meaningless and hard to search for, for people not familiar with the culture.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to later change the article 'title' to its english translation. It also mean we first need to keep it so that we could work on english translation of this title later. Thanks.--170.35.208.21 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clearly obvious POV outlet that is addressed in 1984 anti-Sikh riots. While it doesn't qualify for G4 on a technicality (it's not as "well written" as the other POV piece that was deleted at AfD), this nevertheless has to be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your own vote? - I Challenge - based on your own fundament, your own statement and vote might be POV vote.Please note, article indicates India murdered Sikhs and this respected editor is an Indian--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV outlet statement? - Wrong- POV is not a basis to delete an article, soultion is to contribute to wikipedia and make its articles valuable while following wikipedia policies. So you can contribute instead of suppressing the information.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed in 1984 anti-Sikh riots? - Wrong - 1984 anti-Sikh riots happened in the month of November of year 1984 only, but this article deals with the information starting from June 1984, when Operation Blue Star happened and it covers the killings upto mid 1990s. In regards to the killings of the Sikhs between year 1984 to 1994, even supreme court of India called it worse than genocide, so we definitely need this article. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not well written? - then help- Again its not a basis to get such an extremely important article deleted. Wikipedia welcomes its editors to help in improving its articles.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Highly Notable. wp:pov is not a basis to get an article deleted. Solution of wp:pov is to contribute to the article and make it truly neutral. So lets keep this highly notable article.--170.35.208.21 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about Move opinions: A valid article already exists, so moving this doesn't make any sense, there's nothing of value to merge either. —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge- This article is not a fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, as 1984 anti-Sikh riots happened in the month of November of year 1984 only, but this article deals with the information starting from June 1984, when Operation Blue Star happened and it covers the killings upto mid 1990s. In regards to the killings of the Sikhs between year 1984 to 1994, even supreme court of India called it worse than genocide, so we definitely need this article.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots and an obvious attempt to recreate with a different title an article previously deleted (AfD). --RegentsPark (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on condition that a reference can be found that actually refers to the 1984 ghalooghara.--Sikh-History 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested references - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - This article links back to Ghallooghaaraa which links to the sister articles Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa and Wadda Ghallooghaaraa and back to Holocaust where it comes up in section 1.2 "Use of the term Holocaust for Jewish and non-Jewish victims". Maafa - the "African Holocaust or Holocaust of Enslavement" is also there. I didn't create all these holocausts. I am just trying to document some of them and bring them to public awareness.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - While I agree "Ghallooghaaraa" is not yet a term generally used or known outside the Sikh community, if anyone searches "Sikh holocaust" or "1984 holocaust", it does come up. Using the word "holocaust" has difficulties of its own, as evidenced by those who would have it exclusively refer to the Jewish or perhaps the Armenian event. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's not a fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots as it does not refer to events happened in November 1984 only when anti-sikh riots happened. Here are proofs from google book search.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - This article has many citations used throughout the article, and quoted facts. But written very unencyclopedically and full of POV. Badly needs an overhaul, thorough re-write, rename, etc. but if the editors who are the most intent about keeping this article can put in the work and make it happen, then sure, keep it. The ghallugharas are real events in the Sikhs' history (they're discussed as such among many Sikhs) and are entitled to articles, if they are written better.3swordz (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote.. Yes! If there are so many editors supporting this article, then for sure, we should be able to, and your help will be greatly appreciated as well... Thanks again!!--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pov fork that lumps together everything from 15th century to 1993. An essay better suited for a blog than an encyclopaedia.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- this article shud not be deleted as it provides proper information which is very necessary to curb the ignorance or misunderstanding that prevails regarding the tragedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie.therobber (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to establish WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Charma[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO for WP:ENT. Unreferenced since May 2008. — Zhernovoi (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — proposed Afd instead of Speedy to generate thoughts concerning the notability of the subject. — Zhernovoi (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Asha[edit]

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

backing singer; unreferenced article and stub since September 2008. WP is not MySpace Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Priorian Rugby Club[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can find no evidence (Google News, Books) that this club meets notability inclusion criteria. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non Notiable club Codf1977 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the coverage required to establish notability. Not surprising for a two year old low end, very regional league club. Nuttah (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Morro Solar de Jaén[edit]

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

This football club has never played in a national-level league or cup. It fails WP:FOOTYN. It is not a well-known club in Peru either. Almost no sources on article page to support notability. MicroX (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of competing at a high enough level. Giant Snowman 01:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This club has never played at the national level, and doesn't have general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race and inequality in the United States[edit]

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

Highly controversial topic clearly written and sourced to favor a single POV. Some attempts at balancing it have been made (mainly by myself and years ago) but the article would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become neutral. GSMR (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an essay more than an article. --MicroX (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a disambiguation page. In its current form, the article definitely reads like an essay and does not take a NPOV. That said, the page could be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to sections of articles that already exist, such as the African American and women's articles. Movementarian (Talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely search term. Or Keep and turn into a DAB page as proposed by Movementarian. Articles on the page could include Racism in the United States, Feminism in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States, etc.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremist POV.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV essay. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the uncontested ones, keep for Unión Miraflores, and no consensus for the remaining. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

The result was delete Boca Juniors de Huarmey, which is the only properly tagged one of this lot. As to the remaining articles, this AfD is void. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Juniors de Huarmey[edit]

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

This football club has never played in a national-level league or cup. It fails WP:FOOTYN. It is not a well-known club in Peru either. Almost no sources on article page to support notability. MicroX (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these Peruvian football clubs also fail WP:FOOTYN and have few to no sources supporting their notability:

Additions by MicroX (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a quick look through the clubs shows that none have competed at a notable enough level. Giant Snowman 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These articles may only be the tip of the iceberg. Looking at the article on the leagues some of these clubs play in 2010 Ligas Superiores del Peru, I see a lot of blue links to clubs playing at the same level. Are any of them notable? Alzarian16 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Most (not all) of the clubs found in Ligas Superiores are not notable because the majority have played in their respective District League for decades and have never ascended to the top flight nor touched the national stage of Copa Perú. A select few are former top-flight clubs but I have not included any of those clubs on this list. In addition, many of these Copa Perú clubs have sources found in blogs. --MicroX (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been better to not nominate so many in one go in order to allow more time to assess the validity of each one. Eldumpo (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uni Chiclayo, Municipal de Huamanga, Humberto Luna, Juventud Media Luna, Municipal San Ignacio and Michiquillay - these all played in the 2009 Copa Perú [52] Eldumpo (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senor de Sipan - played in the 2008 Copa Perú [53] Eldumpo (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merely playing in the Copa Peru does not mean notability. The bulk of this event starts in district, province, and department leagues which are not notable in Peruvian football. The Copa Peru's national stage is the ultimate stage where some kind of minor notability is achieved by the semi-finalists and finalists but it is not certain. Senor de Sipan did not make it far in the regional stage (stage prior to national stage) and were eliminated by placing 3rd (of 4) in their group. Universidad de Chiclayo, Humberto Luna, Juventud Media Luna, Municipal San Ignacio and Michiquillay were all eliminated in the regional stage (like Senor de Sipan), a stage not noted at a national level. Deportivo Municipal de Huamanga were eliminated in the first round of the national stage of 2009.--MicroX (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Union Miraflores - played in Peruvian top flight and were runners-up in 1917 (info added to article). Eldumpo (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universidad Andina - played in final regional stages of 2006 Copa Perú [54] Eldumpo (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deportivo Sachapuyos and Belen - played in the final regional stages of the 2002 Copa Perú [55] Eldumpo (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universidad Piura - played in final regional stages of 1999 Copa Perú [56] Eldumpo (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the above except Union Miraflores. --MicroX (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Copa Peru is effectively the 2nd level of the national league system, and whilst it won't be reasonable to include every club who starts the competition, including those clubs who have reached the main regional stage of the event does appear to be notable, based on the importance of football in Peru and the RSSSF sources. Notwithstanding that, I am surprised that you feel Huamanga should not be deemed notable, having made the national stages of the Copa Peru. This suggests that you think only a small number of clubs in the whole of Peru are regarded as notable? Eldumpo (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yes, only a small number of clubs (well not that small) are regarded notable in Peru. The country is a heavily centralized country; the central hub being the capital city. There is very, very little coverage of the Copa Peru. Interest for this event begins in the very final stages of the tournament. Merely reaching the round of 16 of the national stage does not guarantee notability as every year, the clubs that reach these stages drastically change. In fact, Deportivo Municipal de Huamanga is a new team. On a side note, notability requires verifiability and most of these clubs use blogs to keep up to date which aren't very reliable if you ask me. --MicroX (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted already the RSSSF references to the Copa Peru but here are some other references [57] [58] [59].

Also, as posted below, please note that Union Miraflores previously played in the Peruvian top flight. Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the FPF as a source is not a good idea. As you can see, the event is not completed. That website is not reliable. Zonabase.net is a blog site which also isn't a good idea. Blogs also sometimes publish original research. DeChalaca is also a kind of blog but it is only 1 source and it does not keep to date with all the teams and leagues. Union Miraflores did play in the top flight so that team is notable but the rest should be deleted. --MicroX (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with using FPF as a source. The particular page linked is to a list of regional winners, thus further confirming the list of notable sources for the Copa Peru. Here is another link to the regional stages [60] Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the FPF's coverage of the 2009 Copa Peru is incomplete. The way things work in Peru is that the most notable event is the first division (that and the national team's performance). The first division is all that really matters. The second division is there but the media and public don't pay much attention to it until a team is about to be promoted. The Copa Peru isn't extensively covered either until the semifinals or finals. So in the eyes of the public and media, the Copa Peru isn't notable until a team is about to get promoted. On another note, the Copa Peru promotes teams to both the first and second division and soon it will not promote teams to the first division. If Peruvians don't see these teams as notable teams (except those that have played in top division in the past), then why should they be considered notable on Wikipedia. A similar case is Spain's first division. The Spanish league is officially called Primera Division but the Wikipedia entry is La Liga and the reason why it was never moved to Primera Division was because no one refers it as Primera Division. It is notably seen by the public and media as La Liga. We have a similar case here. Most of these Peruvian teams are not notable because they are not noted by the media and public unless they are promoted or reach the very final stages.--MicroX (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of statements above (and in previous paragraphs) that are unreferenced e.g. 'the first division is all that really matters', 'in the eyes of the public...'. I have presented a number of references showing the notability of the Copa Peru. Eldumpo (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, just want to say I have lived in Peru and I know the public opinion on the matter of the Copa Peru. The sports newspapers in Peru are Depor, Libero, ElBocon, TodoSport. Depor does not really report much on the Copa Peru as you can see on its site. Libero has a section on Copa Peru however, it virtually provides no coverage as the only things that appear are 2 reports published on June 6 on teams that are already notable in Peru (Deportivo Municipal and Atlético Grau). ElBocon also has a section on Copa Peru, however their coverage is on the Lima Province leagues; a lot of teams on this AfD list are of clubs that participate outside of Lima. Todosport fails to mention anything on Copa Peru. This is how the printed media views the Copa Peru. Then there is a popular online website called futbolperuano which has some poor coverage of the Copa Peru. As you can see, the headlines pertain to last year's Copa Peru (Leon de Huanuco was the champion) and the only headline for this year is that a traditional club that participates in Copa Peru lost their president (Deportivo Municipal). If you look at the coverage of the First Division in these articles, it will be greater and more detailed. This is what I meant with "the first division is all that really matters" and "in the eyes of the public". --MicroX (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the Primera Division is not the main league in Peru or where most attention is focused, although that is the case in all countries, and it does not mean there is no interest or notability anywhere outside the top league. I think this page now shows a significant number of links referring to the Copa Peru; I'm sure there are other articles on Wikipedia would love to have that many sources. I don't see the problem with futpol peruano referring to 2009 still, as the 2010 competition is not complete - it confirms notability for the competition. Here are some further Copa Peru sources [61] [62] Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is any of the articles that are kept from this list will remain stubs aside from lack of notability. --MicroX (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Howard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Janet Howard (2nd nomination)

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

Fashion designer but it's not clear she is notable. Two cites are press releases, another mentions her winning a "California Designer of the Year" award in '96. I don't think this really meets notability guidelines. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the sources, and they are indeed trivial mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to suggest notability Vartanza (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all and redirect to the appropriate campus, with the exception of Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, for which the result was ~~no consensus~~ keep. No one supporting keep has shown significant coverage in reliable sources for these organizations. T. Canens (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Foundation of California State University, Fresno[edit]

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

Series of stubs about CSU support organizations; unnecessary and non-notable fork of content at parent university articles. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all stubs about non-notable support organizations for schools in the California State University system, which either duplicate content which is already in the parent university article, or can readily be merged into the parent article. If a consolidated list of CSU support organizations is desired, the names could be added to the article Auxiliary Organizations Association.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - as per nom - all non notable, some may be valid search terms so maybe redirect them to California State University. Codf1977 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with redirects, but the redirect should be to the individual campus of CSU, for example to California State University, Fresno. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should have made that clearer - obviously to the correct campus. Codf1977 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't see how any of these fails notablity. In the case of the student governments, they each have thousands (excuse me, sometimes tens of thousands) of members, each is one of the largest and most active organizations in its own community (if not region), each funds numerous programs, etcetera. In the case of the foundations there is an even greater case for notability because of the myriad progrmams they fund with the millions of dollars they have. Together the CSU system is the largest student body on Earth. I think we need a little perspective here.

The activity of these organizations are in third party sources regularly. I also don't see how we can fairly exclude some and not others. Associated Students, Chico is like a behemoth, whereas Associated Students, Fresno works out of a closet sized office. They both serve thousands of people in their communities, however with different resources available.

I also feel a duty to point out that being a stub is not a reason to support deletion. Stubs exist for a reason. The idea is that the presence of these articles makes a place for contributions that otherwise would not be made.

Furthermore, I think that the fact that these are academically related topics deserves higher priority in general on WP. I think it behooves us on WP to provide as much information on academic sources of information as possible. People make links to these sorts of things in their references, etcetera. I think we should be building this stuff not deleting it. These are organizations that give money for academic research. I am truly puzzled at the priorities here. Greg Bard 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Recent edits, especially long-worded ones are not helpful with some of the attached edit summaries. Suggest such edits stop and let the AfD debate take place. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion about the actual issue, as well as my long-windedness. However I have every right to be as "longwinded" as I feel I need to be. I am not getting in the way of any debate, and I find your last comment to be"not helpful" quite frankly. Perhaps restrict ourselves to the merits and demerits of the proposal? Greg Bard 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CLUB for non-profit organizations as reliably sourced citations have not been provided and as per Codf1977's observations. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, do you really think that any of these organizations do not meet the criterion for secondary sources? Some of these organizations have their own PR department.Greg Bard 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some of these organizations have received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, as required to be considered notable by Wikipedia. If so, I would encourage anyone who knows of such sources to add them to the articles. Because all I could find was: their own websites, these Wikipedia articles, and an occasional item in the local campus newspaper. (Yes, I did follow WP:BEFORE.) That degree of sourcing is not enough to meet WP:GROUP. If the information about these organizations is merged to the article about the parent campus, or already included there as is the case with most of them, then it is still here on Wikipedia and available to interested parties - even without an article of their own. --MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added third party sources for AS Bakersfield. I will certainly be able to do the same for all the others. They are all located in cities with newspapers, etcetera. Will this suffice to re-evaluate this proposal?Greg Bard 03:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a step in the right direction, but I doubt if it satisfies WP:GROUP's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." These seem more like "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Of these stories you found in local newspapers, two mention the group in passing as sponsor of an upcoming activity, and I can't find any mention of the group in the third one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- CSU campus auxiliary foundations have often been involved in controversy, For example, during the past year, the Sonoma State University Academic Foundation has been the center of a controversy over real estate loans made to a local developer and former board member, Clem Carinalli. A sample of article titles from the daily Santa Rosa The Press Democrat: Nathan Halverson, "SSU foundation hit by Carinalli loans," The Press Democrat, July 2, 2009, pp. A1, A11; Nathan Halverson, "Loans to Carinalli draw SSU rebuke: Faculty group says foundation 'betrayed public trust,'" The Press Democrat, July 3, 2009, pp. B1, B3; Nathan Halverson, "SSU foundation's private land loans," The Press Democrat, July 26, 2009, pp. A1, A6-7; Nathan Halverson, "State auditing SSU foundation," The Press Democrat, November 24, 2009, pp. A1, A9; Nathan Halverson, "SSU blames Carinalli, ousts official over loans: Crowd at hearing charges university officials mismanaged foundation," The Press Democrat, Dec. 17, 2009, pp. A1, A11; Nathan Halverson, "Carinalli suing SSU foundation to get $234,000 back," The Press Democrat, March 3, 2010, pp. A1, A5. Another controversy surrounded the secrecy about the amount in private funds raised by CSU Stanislaus' foundation to bring Sarah Palin to campus for a fund-raising speech this summer. A California Assembly committee will hold hearings on a bill to provide more transparency to CSU foundation activities. I'll refrain from writing up the story line in the foundation's article until a decision to keep has been made. Dwalls (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would like to see this debate re-listed. The proposal involves several articles. I think that the fact that these organizations are among the most active in their own community and region ensures their notability. The student governments hold annual elections for officers. These are governments we are talking about here.Greg Bard 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment responding to Dwalls: what you say certainly amounts to notability for those particular foundations. I remember reading about the Sarah Palin speech controversy, although I didn't realize it was the CSU Stanislaus FOUNDATION that was involved; most of the coverage made it sound like it was the university itself. (That story should be covered at California State University, Stanislaus but I see it isn't mentioned there.) In any case, the Stanislaus foundation is not included in this delete request. This is not a proposal to delete ALL such organizations, only the ones that don't satisfy WP:N. So you can go ahead and add the information to the Stanislaus article, it is safe. The sources you mention sound like adequate coverage about the Sonoma foundation, and if you add them, I will withdraw my delete nomination for that foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment responding to Gregbard: Yes, they are student governments and they have elections, but those elections do not receive notability outside of the campus itself. As noted above, some of the foundations DO receive wider coverage; those that satisfy WP:N should stay. The fact that some such foundations are notable does not mean they all are. According to Auxiliary Organizations Association there are 90 such support organizations for the CSU system; are you seriously arguing that all 90 of them deserve articles? --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninty of the most influential organizations in the state of California? Yes. You seem to be under the impression that the foundations are more notable than the student governments. Perhaps they should be, due to their $$$ and influence. However usually they get less attention from the media than the student governments. In every case, when there is a student government election there is coverage by the local non-campus paper, and certainly the events they sponsor also get regular coverage.Greg Bard 00:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not under any such impression - that the foundations are more notable than the student governments. I do not generalize at all; I judge each organization according to its demonstrated notability. Coverage of student body elections "in every case"? I have never seen any coverage of the San Diego State student elections in the local San Diego media, even though San Diego State is one of the biggest and most active student bodies in the system (and you will note I did not nominate it for deletion). It is going to take more than your repeated assertion about how influential these organizations are; it is going to take evidence in the form of WP:Reliable sources. In any case, I'm glad to see you assert unflinchingly that all 90 of these organizations deserve articles of their own; it allows other readers here to see where you are coming from. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about a local philanthropic group like a chapter of the soroptimists, then that wouldn't qualify. However these organizations are very rich, and fund projects that gain third party coverage all the time. They are some of the most influential organizations in the state by any standard.

I do not appreciate your attempt to characterize me. For your information these are all verifiable, if not verified. At some point we are able to use common sense about it. If you are going to robotically delete every article that doesn't actually have all of its sources without regard to the common sense issues of notabity then there isn't any point in discussing it with you. You have every right to waste people's time on WP. I've already spent enough time for now on the Bakersfield group. Greg Bard 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I feel I should also point out that the reason why a university has auxiliary organizations in the first place is specifically so as to create an entity that is separate from the university. Placing the information about these entities in the same article as their university defeats their efforts.Greg Bard 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus that he does not meet our notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Allen (Musician)[edit]

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

I can't find any articles on this person in GNews. The Ghits don't seem to elevate him to notability. His association with a record label isn't relevant since notability isn't inherited. Propose delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- Mr. Vernon, I appreciate your input on this article. However, I must contest the suggestion that this artist is not notable. I've been a fan of this culture of the Arts for years, that said, I believe I have an insight to the notability and cultural relevance of this society of the arts that could broaden the importance of this article for you. Although, as you stated, artists such as this are not making up-to-the-minute news breaks on GNews as a top 50 Billboard Pop act might, they are part of a powerful force of artists that are continuing the tradition of the arts that exist beyond the stratosphere of mainstream news channels. These artists are taking the aesthetics of sound and moving it from your record player to incredible museums such as Museum_of_Modern_Art, Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture_Garden, Seattle_Art_Museum and literally hundreds of others in the form of sound_art installations. I personally have seen Cory Allen featured in international magazines and art news sources such as Wire Magazine The_Wire_(magazine), Guitar Player Magazine Guitar_Player, Cyclic Defrost Cyclic_Defrost, Exclaim! Exclaim!, and countless others. This music exists on the same plane as visual arts and is of vital importance to the continued growth and richness of the art scene in America and all over the world. For reference and a broader understanding of the size and relevance of this culture, the following are a very few artists who are peers of Cory Allen (some of who he has worked with) who have had Wiki articles approved: Alva_Noto, Richard_Chartier, Ryoji_Ikeda, Taylor_Deupree, Machinefabriek, Kim_Cascone, Raster-Noton, Frank_Bretschneider, Jan_Jelinek, Pansonic, 12k, Touch_Music, Oren_Ambarchi, Christian_Fennesz, Biosphere_(musician), BJNilsen Hopefully, this information has given you more insight into the relevance, impact and huge culture of art that exists with this type of music and culture of which Cory Allen is an integral part.

In closing, I respectfully request you look deeper into this topic and consider removing your nomination for deletion for this artist's proposed Wikipedia page. I love Wikipedia because it constantly introduces me to entire new worlds of culture, technology, and universal wonder. It would be a devastating hammer-blow to the world art community to keep information about an established and internationally recognized artist from the public's knowledge base and deprive other's of finding their way into new worlds of thought, information, and artistic inspiration. I'm sure you can tell how passionate I am about the artists in this culture, and I hope you consider approving this article with the knowledge that there are tens of thousands of people out there that share the same light, passion and enthusiasm for this genre of expression. Lotusleaves (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC) lotusleaves[reply]

Comment Please note that "lotusleaves" wrote the article up for AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The genre and art form is not up for deletion. This article's subject simply needs to be verified and referenced with significant coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added various verified references for biographical information.Lotusleaves (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more verified third party sources which show notability of the artist.Lotusleaves (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not relevant to discussion. GregJackP (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GregJackP, This article meets the first Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 'A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.' Please see article references 1) Sound Projector, 2) Tokafi article, 5) The_Wire_(magazine), and 6) Cyclic_Defrost. Lotusleaves (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. #1 (thesoundprojector) is a trivial, one paragraph mention and is not a reliable source (blog). #2 (tokafi) is not a reliable source (as covered at WP:RS), although it is more in depth. #3 (cory-allen.com) is self-published and not reliable nor independent. #4 (quiet design) is self-published and not reliable nor independent. #5 (the wire) does not mention the subject of the article. #6 (cyclicdefrost) may or may not be reliable, but only mention Allen in passing (trivial). Notability has not been established, nor are all of the the references reliable. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This artist may not be on the top 40 charts as far as notability goes, but he is the first 2 hits if you search for "Cory Allen" on google in addition to having 5 google image entries on its first page. He's not totally obscure by any means. trichocereus 21:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it fascinating that the first and only contribution of trichocereus was to this AfD. Please read WP:SOCKS. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, you did nothing to refute what I said. Second, as you so pointedly said, I am indeed new to this. I was just trying to contribute. I took a contrary position and you assumed the worst. I've got to start somewhere. If I had added a comment to another article you were discussing and disagreed would you so quickly take this tack? Google "Cory Allen". On the first page I found this wiki entry. I usually check wiki first. Ergo, here I am. Again, perhaps he's not as obscure as you seem to believe. Thanks. trichocereus 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page in question doesn't even show up in the first page of Google results. If you want a sockpuppet investigation, enjoy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2010 Comment WP:NOASSUMESOCK Lotusleaves (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry if I typed it wrong, it's "Cory Allen musician" that you search for. Try it. You still haven't even responded to my first post, what the hell is this? Why all the hostility? trichocereus 23:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Google hits doesn't really count for much around here. What counts is third party coverage from reliable sources. This guy has nowhere near the notability of Fennesz or Ryoji Ikeda, to pick a couple of the names from the laundy list given above. Hairhorn (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I truly can't believe the people critiquing this article. I love reading Wikipedia and decided to register in order to help build the database and make an entry for an important artist. All I've been met with has been terse hostility from rather lugubrious registrants who seem to think they are admins. This experience has exposed a part of Wikipedia that I wouldn't have imagine existed, I am certainly going to email Wikipedia in hopes of finding a reasonable answer for this type of pointless hostility towards knowledge. I also don't understand why anyone would have a problem entering information about an artist that in 5 years, emerged as a new voice in a pre-existing art movement. Are only artist who have been around for 20 years like Fennesz or Ryoji Ikeda acceptable here? This entire arts culture is communicated through magazines, review websites (companies, not personal), radio interviews and word of mouth. How do you all expect it to evolve to your stringent level of 'notability' if information isn't posted in places such Wikipedia so that more people can LEARN about it??? Perhaps the folks sitting around recreationally scanning the AfD pages are sending their post to the wrong address. As a side note: I find the suggestion of "sockpuppeting" insulting (after I looked up what it was) and quite childish. I also had to look up to see what a 'laundy list' was. Peace.99.184.76.216 (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that The National Endowment for the Arts, The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and The Thendara Foundation would agree that the references/links to the American Music Center journalism pieces are verifiable. Or else AMC has a lot of explaining to do to its donors, and the FBI. MIght check with the founding editor Frank J. Oteri for verifiability as well. Peace. 99.184.76.216 (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do wish the subject success, but the article currently fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage has been shown. Joe Chill (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added reference which meets 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles; 12.Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.' Reference 9 'Allen/Quiet Design feature on Germany's WDR3' - Allen/Quiet Design was the subject of an hour long radio feature on one of Germany's largest national radio stations from which the quote on sound was taken.Lotusleaves (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears that he was feature on the show, but that he was not the subject of the show. More of a passing mention, than the subject of the show. GregJackP (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you listen to the feature? Its an hour-long feature on the label and Allen, with about a half hour of Allen being interviewed by Raphael Smarzoch about his label and philosophy on sound. My buddy from Germany sent me a copy of it that he recorded. The feature is called 'Guitar 3.0' because the push off point for the feature is about a Quiet Design release Allen produced and played on that has been celebrated as an innovation in that arts scene. Hopefully this broadens the scope for you. Peace.Lotusleaves (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried the search for "Cory Allen musician" as suggested and got four Wikipedia connected hits, and five that were either blogs or appeared to be catchall adverts. Moving the quotes to give "Cory Allen" "musician" gave more results, most of whom seemed to be someone else, and those that weren't appeared to be bloggish in nature. I only went through the first eight pages, but if there's nothing there there's not going to be much further on in my experience. Self-published - but so were the Beatles on Apple... However, they had been on Parlophone before that. About the best reference, to my mind, is the WDR3 feature. WDR3 is somewhat equivalent to the BBC's Radio 3 in featuring both classical music, jazz, and sometimes off the wall stuff that tends not to get aired elsewhere. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheers, thanks for the research and helpful perspective/information Peridon Peace.Lotusleaves (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dekiti Tirsia Siradas[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced article about a martial art that fails WP:MANOTE. I can find no independent sources that indicate it's notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article that is both unsourced and fails to make any claim of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization's web site only lists 8 locations. Clearly fails WP:WPMA/N. 173.79.40.25 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and not notable. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to determine WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AKIS[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this smart card. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. --MicroX (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dittohead's Guide to Adult Beverages[edit]

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

Certainly there are a lot of ghits for the title. However, in searching on the title for this as-yet-unreferenced article in the main search and the news search (both with and without the apostrophe), I could find nothing to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked out various Google searches and found sites selling the book but no reviews. So by WP:Notable it should not have an article. I know by WP:Assume good faith that this is the reason it was nominated for deletion. I look forward to the nomination of many other non-notable books: conservative, liberal, and non-political. Wolfview (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defqon 1[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given for contest) - Unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject. AussieLegend (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this dance festival. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Brown (politician)[edit]

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

Is a city clerk notable? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources covering this person in depth, or information in the article beyond his name and his job. Wolfview (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salem hypothesis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline, and large portions of it consist of original research via synthesis. There are 4 references cited. Of these, two (the talk.origins FAQ, and a PZ Myers blog entry) don't seem to meet our standards for reliable sourcing. The other two are academic papers, but one (An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement) doesn't even contain the word "Salem," so any attempt to tie it to this Usenet-based hypothesis is original research. The fourth source (Engineers of Jihad) does contain a footnote that describes the Salem Hypotheis. But that's only cited in passing and doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. *** Crotalus *** 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor, or more accurately trivial, "hypothesis" which doesn't meet basic notability guidelines. No mainstream coverage found. "Academic support" for the idea consists of an essay at Creative Commons and a paper presented to the Iowa Academy of Science. But Creative Commons is just a blog, and "papers presented" are not peer-reviewed and thus do not carry the reliability of journal articles. Other than that, it seems to be pretty much one guy's idea - a guy whose credentials are that he is "a regular contributor to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup" - vaguely supported by a few other guys. I'm surprised the article has lasted this long - and that it survived its first deletion nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be merged somewhere, perhaps Talk.origins? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on creationists. A sentence could be added saying it has been noted that more creationists have engineering than scientific backgrounds. An article is not needed to present this one observation, interesting as it is. Wolfview (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Salem Hypothesis is a correlational study. Peer review journals are full correlational studies which are relatively easy to produce. This hypthosesis is not yet supported by enough indpendant research to meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Kipre[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. A passing mention in a caption and later in an article in one article in Google news, otherwise no secondary, independent sources that I could find via Google Web/News/Books. Probably would have prod'd this, but I'm suspicious of my own abilities to find good sources for footballers overseas, so .... Joe Decker (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Retracting nomination (is there a way I'm supposed to do this?), it seems to me that ClubOranje's improved sourcing of the articles addresses my WP:V concerns, and I agree with that editor with regard to WP:ATHLETE. I now recommend Keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently played for Wuppertaler SV Borussia in Germany when in the RegionalLiga Nord (semi pro) but also played 5 matches for FC Energie Cottbus in 2. Fußball-Bundesliga which is fully pro. Passes ATHLETE. Awaiting a keen Ivorian as it needs improvement. --ClubOranje^T 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 21:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but the references verify that he has played internationally for Ivory Coast and professionally in the German 2. Bundesliga - easily passes WP:ATHLETE and should easily pass WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Per lack of proper sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Catrina (educational program)[edit]

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

These two articles are spanish-language educational videos that don't appears to meet WP:N. I can't find any coverage from reliable sources that indicates encyclopedic notability. The supplied references, if they work, are merely promotional in nature. The content consists of almost entirely plot summaries of the ~20 minute long episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientizzle (talk • contribs)

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

Shrink. I've seen these videos (since I took Spanish during high school) and I think they are notable enough to have a brief mention on Wikipedia, but I don't think full-length plot summaries of every episode are necessary. Rather, the full-length plot summaries should be cut out and replaced with a brief summary of the entire story arc. In short, cut the article down to a more appropriate size, but don't delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one trims both of these articles and maintains the current provided sources, then one is left with only shorter articles that don't apear to have been the subject of secondary coverage. I was not able to find any secondary coverage...please provide any potential sources you find. — Scientizzle 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All or Nothing (band)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not the easiest band name to search on due to lots of false positives. I found a staff review at absolutepunk.net of their split album with The Wonder Years ([63]), and an interview at Change The Record ([64]), which claims to have staff, but is debatable as a reliable source. Also found an article from the Arbroath Herald ([65]), Altsounds news article ([66]), Altsounds review ([67]), a review on Aversion.com ([68]), and a few more fanzine/bloggy reviews: [69], [70], [71]. Not totally convincing as sufficient significant coverage but if anyone can find more it might scrape through.--Michig (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfriendly Neighbours[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. of the coverage provided none of the refs that provide independent coverage of Unfriendly Neighbours appear to be reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. article creator appears to be ReggiiMental, an associated act [72] duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage for this band. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nineteen Eighty-Four (film). Redirecting on the suggestion from Mansford. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Flag[edit]

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

non-notable actor, no evidence any role he played was subtantial (he only gave his likeness to Nineteen Eighty-Four) Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four (film) and mention the little bit of info here in the section about the cast. Notwithstanding that George Orwell's book is a classic, and that Big Brother is a central figure in the book, the film adaptation wasn't legendary. Ironically, he's more visible than David Prowse was in Star Wars, having the advantage of being both seen and heard. However, Michael Radford's 1984 was no Star Wars. Mandsford 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i disagree about the status of this film adaption, and i think others may as well. however, its obviously not as popular as other films from the time. Flag did star in a film, Cold Light of Day, a docu-drama about a british serial killer, which won a somewhat obscure award at the 1990 venice film festival. (the UCCA - Twenty Cities' Union Clubs Cinema Arci, or UCCA Venticittà Award). I am not sure if this establishes notability though. I am personally highly biased, as i loved the film 1984 and his image in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 May 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, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to determine WP:N at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football Mad Nation[edit]

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

a non notable media campaign. can't find any significant coverage of it. [73]. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it may well be a non-notable media campaign, but it looks like it may well be a hit single from a notable musical artist. If sourced and rewritten to be about the song, I think this would be a solid Keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Ash[edit]

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

Although referenced, the notability of the subject itself is questionable — was not able to find enough reliable sources to establish notability. Speedy deletion request under A7 on October 6, 2008 was declined. — Zhernovoi (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His dealership, and to a lesser extent he himself, were subjects of a Washington Post news story. Couldn't find much else, though. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, being a BLP more participation would have been helpful. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delvon Roe[edit]

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

College athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No indication of meeting either the general or athlete specific notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search demonstrates significant third party coverage. Gigs (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATHLETE is met with 'People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.' Now that many professionals compete in Olympics/WCs (e.g., over last 20 years) the highest level in the US is top flight NCAA basketball. Roe is a starter for a team in a BCS conference and started in two final fours (and one title game). This meets the prong from WP:ATHLETE and therefore the article should be kept.RonSigPi (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive non-trivial third party coverage, thus meets GNG -Drdisque (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable wiki application - didn't get any press coverage or notable usage during its two-year lifetime. According to the article, it seems to have been both the first wiki software written in Java, and the first database-backed wiki software - both of these are interesting, if true, but I don't think either one establishes notability. Yaron K. (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically significant early wiki platform. Dead as a dodo these days, but it was an important step with two (arguably one as an "innovation") significant innovations: back-ending with a SQL database rather than flat-files and also using Java. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't make the software notable according to the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I extended a bit the related article History_of_wikis to include Jwiki. However, I see little value for a separate article for this software. Pxtreme75 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Its worthy of a mention in History of wikis, which Pxtreme75 has already done. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer standards[edit]

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

List's intent is so overbroad as to be unmaintainable--the number of "computer standards" in the wild numbers over one hundred thousand in practice. Though this list does have the convenience of listing version numbers and dates, popular standards get out of date very quickly, leading to stale data in the list. A category hierarchy is much more appropriate here. Todd Vierling (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Todd Vierling (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If over one hundred thousands, it could be changed to List of notable computer standards. -- Frap (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The core hardware list in the first half of the page is incredibly compact and in no danger of growing out of control - it primarily lists fundemental PC Standards, so perhaps a renaming. I'd recommend a more explicit criteria be chosen to reflect the basically static nature of the Hardware list and t should be kept as a list, and not as a category as it's theme tends naturally to the informative (with the inclusion of release dates and annotaton) and not to simple categorisation. As for anything not fitting that compact description, they should indeed be categorised. I also take issue with removal of links to the page before an AfD is complete, and feel those links should be reinstated until a discussion is had. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Useful list imho, but Computer standard is a redlink and the term is not defined in this list, which would be an argument to delete per Wikipedia:Listcruft. So either the Computer standard article needs to be written, or the list should be renamed (no idea to what name, though). --Pgallert (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, use to generate a Computer standard article. –SJ + 17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, if one does the simplest possible search in WorldCat it turns out that it's a perfectly good topic with multiple references. To start, there's an entire journal on the subject from Elsevier, Computer standards and interface worldCat There's at least one symposium on the subject, WorldCat. There's a LC subject heading: Computers--Standards -- and there are 4,500 books that fall under that subject heading [74], of which about half are relevant, and 1 in 10 closely relevant, including the standard references ASTM standards on computerized systems[75] from the major standards organization and IEEE Standards for computers[76] from the major professional society, and even a USGov index to them Federal information processing standards publications (FIPS PUBS) index. from the National Bureau of Standards,[77] [78]. Here's a typical textbookInternational standards for the computer industry. [79].(I'm only stopping because there are 400 more screens of hits to go). Gavin, I suppose you want to withdraw your vote, since your argument has been shown to be incorrect. Pgallert, not everything notable yet has a WP article: there seems to be good cause to do one. There are a few million other necessary articles also. Todd, in your nomination, are you actually opposing a list because there are too many of them--the list can be subdivided as necessary. I've seen lists opposed as not having enough items, but that there are many is an argument for notability. We can handle any size list; we're not paper. That it needs to be maintained, well so does everything else. Every sports article in WP needs to be maintained, and the are 100,000s of them. Every article on a town or city in WP needs to be maintained, and the are 100,000s of them also. Every person with an active career. (I apologize for using names, but I need to separate out the arguments). DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : List scope is not too broad at all,in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists.'. That "popular standards get out of date" is completely irrelevant, because notability is not temporary. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2pm Model Management[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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