Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 15

< 14 June	16 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby June (Moe Rock song)[edit]

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

I just nominated Moe Rock, the performer of this song, for deletion also.

On his article, there is an unreferenced table which says this song peaked at spot 97 on the Irish music charts. This song is not part of an album and is one of two songs by this artist purported as notable. Blue Rasberry 01:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NSONGS. I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this song; only links to its lyrics, video, or torrent. Gongshow ^Talk 04:05, 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) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadsword Interactive[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) 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A video game company. Their one game, Dance: UK, generated a flurry of coverage at its release in 2003, but apart from that I don't see anything that establishes that the underlying business has historical, technical, or cultural interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 16 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) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage for this company. --Teancum (talk) 18:34, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb 20[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nor can I. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stylus Magazine has a couple of reviews. However, it is unclear that this magazine is a reliable source, and in any case coverage out of a single minor magazine doesn't do it for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon McNab[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:N as having not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE, having never played a fully-pro match, and WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage. Looks like a clear cut deletion to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Eichel[edit]

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

~~WP:NORESUMES Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom Withdrawn as User:Cirt has improved the article since the Nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bio is nothing but a résumé. Subject is quoted in multiple news sources related to sexual addiction and David Duchovny, but otherwise seems non-notable. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was easily able to find multiple sources in books, news articles, and published scholarly academic sources. Searches include under alternate names, Steve K. D. Eichel and Steve Dubrow-Eichel. -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because “Subject is quoted in multiple news sources ... but otherwise seems non-notable.” by AfD proposer and “Was easily able to find multiple sources in books, news articles, and published scholarly academic sources.” by “keep” proposer. --Technopat (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done some research and expanded the article, with coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. It is interesting to note that Steve Eichel was an expert witness in the 2003 case of Lee Boyd Malvo. His work exposing fraudulent credentialing organizations was reported in multiple different secondary sources. He has been a media resource on the subject of psychology for decades, and in 2010 was scheduled to give a lecture alongside Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Weaponbb7 (the nominator) Health Researcher (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominators rationale WP:NORESUMES explicitly is no generally accepted standard on Wikipedia. --Morton Shumway (talk) 23:44, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song of the Counter Culture Tour[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy and the United Nations[edit]

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

What is immediately apparent on this page is the atrocious POV issues, as evidence by the title. The article mostly consists of random policies and motions proposed and adopted at the UN relating to discrimination against religion, with no connection made to "blasphemy." For example, the passage from the article,

"Blasphemy became a serious matter for the United Nations in 1999. In that year, Pakistan brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), under the agenda item on racism, a resolution entitled "Defamation of Islam."

is attributed to this source, which says, "Defimation of religions resolutions at the UN operate as international anti-blasphemy laws and provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, which in practice empower ruling majorities against weak minorities and dissenters." It seems to me that the article consists almost entirely of primary sources whose only connection is that some editor(s) thinks they are related to blasphemy. I do not believe WP:notability of this topic has been established by third party sources, as is required by policy. I think this article should be deleted and information that is salvageable, if there is any, should be merged into Criticism of the United Nations. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on whether the article should go, although it could probably be easily incorporated into another article. If it is kept, it needs to be moved. Whoever wrote the page has completely misused the word blasphemy. It should be religious defamation as that is what the article calls it most of the time. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this is such a mess we need to start over. The title is not even used in the article or the sources, nor is there any definition of the term. Violates the rule against soap-boxes. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now it's been renamed (by me) to Defamation of religions and the United Nations. The previous title was pretty POV - 'blasphemy' is not mentioned in the laws in question. However, I think it's now an acceptable article, covering a notable subject that the UN has addressed a number of times. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a valid subject here. If the UN has passed resolutions on a subject then it is almost certainly notable. I flagged the old title as fishy some time back but regret that I didn't follow through and rename it myself. Now Robofish has done that, I think we are on a sounder footing. Work is still needed to rewrite the content in a more neutral way. I will tag for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for the United Nations, comprised of representatives from nations around the world, to dedicate their time to passing measures for it over the years. Google news search(for "Defamation of religions" and "United Nations") shows it gets mentioned in the news over the years, not just at one event. [1] Dream Focus 09:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments seem to mostly imply "if it's about the UN, it's notable." There has not been a single third party source provided claiming this is a significant issue. How many thousands of resolutions does the UN pass that we do not hear about? This article is really just a loosely defined list of resolutions, propositions, etc with only Wikipedia making the connection between them. This is clear WP:OR. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click the link I proved? This gets ample coverage. Click and read through the summaries. Dream Focus 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AzureFury's comments above. This is absolutely WP:OR. The intent of the original author is clear in his choice of the original title for the article. No sources exist to establish the notability of "Blasphemy" or "Defamation of religions and the United Nations". Fails WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody voting "keep" accepts that there was a massive POV problem and that further work is needed. The article as it stands may not be written from sources and have an OR problem but the sources do exist and show that the subject is controversial:

About 170 Google News hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release" source:"-wikipedia" rising to 216 if you make it "religion" (singular).
About 333 Google Books hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations".
About 100 Google Scholar hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations" rising to 257 if you make it "religion" (singular).

OK. I know that counting hits is not foolproof, and that these are not astronomically high numbers, but they are pretty tight search terms and they do show that there is something out there on this subject. I don't think it is responsible to simply delete this article and forget the subject. Maybe it could be merged with an existing article. Maybe it could be gutted of POV and OR by stubbing it and building it up again. That would eliminate the original author's mistakes and give us a fresh start. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my original comment, I would merge whatever salvageable information there is into Criticism of the United Nations. If eventually some editor finds and expands that section into another article, I would have no problems with that. I do not believe the appropriate development cycle for an article is to start with no sources, obvious original research, and atrocious POV issues, and then maybe if someone gets around to it, making it into an acceptable article. I'll probably copy the article into the talk page at Criticism of the United Nations so that if anyone has the time or inclination, they can do with the information what they will. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an appropriate location to merge to, as it assumes that the UN's treatment of defamation of religion is a point of criticism. If perhaps you could have nominated it for move or merge instead of deletion, we could be spending our time fixing this article or finding out where it should finally rest. I consider it without question that involving the UN in defamation of religion is a notable topic; I hear about it in the news fairly regularly. I'm not even sure I see the POV in the article as it stands now; as you said it's mostly regurgitation of UN motions. What about a cleanup and move to United Nations defamation of religion resolutions? - BalthCat (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is subtle and not limited to any sentence or phrase. The selection of sources and motions to include are specified by the editor(s) and not any third party sources. Considering the original name of the article, this makes the article's purpose very transparent. In any case, I think a list format would be much more appropriate and an easier transition with what we've got. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our policy on article titles explicitly discourages "foo and bar" type articles for this exact reason. This isn't original research per se, but it's begging to be an attack page or at least a coat rack for someone's grudges. Given that the main United Nations article doesn't even mention religion, it's hard to argue that there's substantial content that requires a content fork from the main article, especially such a narrow and cherry-picked subpart of the topic. SDY (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has been renamed once (to remove a gross deficiency) doesn't mean that the new title is perfect and that it has to be the final title. The "and" could be eliminated and another new title found more in keeping with the MOS.

The article is very far from being an orphan (it is even in a template) but your point that it isn't even linked from United Nations does need looking at. It might be that the link from United Nations Human Rights Council is sufficient as that covers human rights issues (or would do if it was a better article and a bit less obsessed with Israel). I am going to post a message on Talk:United Nations drawing people's attention to the article and its AfD. I will be very careful not to canvas for a specific outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:OR is that articles should rely primarily on third party sources. Unless I'm mistaken, the article currently possesses zero sources for the first claim, "Defamation of religion became a serious matter for the United Nations." Which means that the article is entirely dependent on primary sources. When we string together primary sources to make a point, that is WP:OR. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- I appreciate the concerns of AzureFury and others that this article is likely to suffer from WP:COATRACK, WP:POV and WP:SYNTH issues but I would only advocate deleting an article on those grounds if it was inherently so and that the problems couldn't be fixed by regular editing and vigilance. I think there is a decent article to be salvaged from this thing. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "this article's name could some day identify a decent article" is not a good reason to keep. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. I think it's got the potential to be a decent article now. The following sources should be enough for a good start: [2], [3], [4]. Reyk _YO! 06:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep might not be the right title or the right scope... but there's definitely an article around here somewhere... something about international law and religious defamation... give the article time to reach its potential... hopefully editors will actually work on this one Arskwad (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. User: DanielRigal questioned the title way back when. What blasphemy is and what defamation of religion means are matters raised repeatedly by groups which are interested in human rights. In the absence of any authoritative decision about whether there is any difference between the two terms, I opted for blasphemy. The consensus here seems to be that defamation of religion is the better term. So be it. The United Nations seems unwilling to abandon that term any time soon. User:AzureFury says the article should be deleted because it "mostly consists of random policies and motions." In fact, the article reports chronologically on what has been going on within the United Nations and between nations. As User: DanielRigal has noted, the subject is eminently noteworthy, and deserves its own article. The mass of information which underlies this article obliged me to chop up resolutions and to include only a line or a paragraph from correspondence. I tried to include enough material to indicate the nature of the debates going on in the United Nations. I tried to include enough material to give the debates a context, and to prevent the article from being seen as merely a list of resolutions. PYRRHON talk 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that source #1 for the article you wrote is specifically denouncing anti-blasphemy and anti-defamation laws at the UN, and you've used it to say, "The resolution expressed concern at the negative stereotyping of Islam, and urged the members of the United Nations to combat religious intolerance against Muslims." Infact, despite the huge controversy relating to empowering majorities against minorities and free speech concerns, this is not mentioned once in the entire article. The word "speech" infact only occurs in a template at the bottom of the article which, not surprisingly, is linking to Freedom of speech versus blasphemy. Is this how "include enough material to give the debates context"? By comparison, the word "Islamophobia" occurs 4 times in the article. Is this what you would call balanced? It is this complete and indisputable bias that makes this article horrible beyond salvation. That's why I think it should be reduced to a section in another article, or perhaps a stub (a balanced stub). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why "beyond salvation"? Surely all we need to do is balance the coverage by fully documenting the arguments on both sides of the controversy, which we have sufficient sources for. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not the appropriate development cycle for an article. You don't start with a pile of crap and then craft something out of it. We'd have to start from scratch, and this would be more appropriate at United Nations rather than in its own article. If that section expands enough, then we can take a second try at an article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it certainly isn't the ideal development cycle for an article, but I have seen it happen before, and decent articles have emerged. In the end that is all that matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'; this is a valid article, and I can't see any POV violations at all. Bias in sources does not bias in an article make. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 pride 04:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University[edit]

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

Last discussion ended in no consensus. The article suffers from three flaws;

Notability: The topic of the list is not notable enough to warrant an article ("Nobel laureates aff. with Princeton")
OR: The inclusion criteria is a synthesis of two independently notable topics. However, so is "Vegetarian Nobel laureates". It is not up to wikipedians to determine what is a common sense topic or not. That is up to reliable third party sources.
3.b: this information could easily be included in the list of nobel lauraetes. Sandman888 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The last AfD for this article ended 6 days ago... You're not very likely to get a different result a mere 6 days after the previous AfD, especially considering the article hasn't had a single edit made to it since that time. Perhaps your time would be better spent attempting to incorporate this information into List of Nobel laureates, which would provide a much stronger argument for the deletion of this article. I have already proposed a way to do this on Talk: List of Nobel laureates#Table organization. Just waiting for a few good volunteers to help me with it, because it's going to be a big job. SnottyWong talk 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The last nomination was to prove a point and this even more so. This is an almanac entry like a list of popes, or countries listed by GDP. I am not sure the notability guideline covers article names for almanac entries. We generally don't have to show that the same list appears in another almanac. It just needs to be useful and the individual items listed need to be referenced. We also don't delete lists before a suggested alternative is created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The article fully meets Wikipedia's notability guideline and is not original research, so there are no grounds for deletion. If the issue is whether to merge it into another list, that's not a deletion issue and doesn't belong here. BRMo (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The information is notable through the appropriate guidelines. 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hash789 (talk • contribs)
Keep "It is not up to wikipedians to determine what is a common sense topic or not" - isn't it? Sources provide back-up not common sense. They are (hopefully, but not always...) fact not reason. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bensia Pioneer Industrial Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only claim to notability is the production of a product which isn't really notable enough for its own article (and is already mentioned in sufficient detail at pencil). All references are either to the company's own website or to a couple of "memorabilia" blogs reminiscing about the pencils that were popular in the 1980s. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising. All sources are self-referential. Photos look like they came straight out of a sales catalog. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Jeukeng[edit]

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

doubt we should be having bios for every top ten U14 tennis player in each country Mayumashu (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - isn't playing at the top level of her sport and not significant coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cissy Wang[edit]

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

This article is simply a list of unsourced gossip. The subject is notable for being married to an actor and for attending parties. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She can be mentioned in the article about Donnie Yen. Her other claim to fame was that she won the Miss Chinese Toronto Pageant and then was one of six Canadian winners to compete in the Miss Chinese International Pageant where she finished in fifth place. I don't know how the beauty pageant project people rank notability, but I have my doubts that this would be inherently notable. If kept, it needs to be without this profile. Mandsford 21:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP about a minor actress and model. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am glad she enjoys her life, but that does not make her notable Vartanza (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donnie Yen#Personal life where all of the relevant information already exists. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 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) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pembroke[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax; check this search. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much reached the same conclusion as Erpert, even if it is not a hoax there is certainly no verifiable sources for the guy online --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I strongly suspect it is a hoax, but as gut feelings aren’t objective and entymology ain’t my field of knowledge, would appreciate the input of others who do know something about the subject. --Technopat (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't need to be an etymologist to see that this is made up. It doesn't seem to get any notice, despite it being a "revolutionary work, widely respected and referred to by classicists nowadays" [5]. Pretty dull as hoaxes go. Mandsford 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main thing it claims he is notable for, a book, cannot be found in Google books. Regardless of its veracity, it fails WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 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) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art and mind control[edit]

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

Since there is no CSD for blatant essays, here we are. This is a blatant essay from an editor with no other edits. Non encyclopedic, reads like WP:OR, and has no inline citations and few if any reliable sources. Possible case for WP:USERFY. — Timneu22 · talk 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't be encyclopedic. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an essay in progress, but I had a hard time following this one. Somewhere in there is something to the effect that people who bid for art at auction houses are under some type of mind control, or something like that. I can't prove it, but this looks a lot like something that has been translated into English by Google translate. The lack of "a", "an" and "the" suggests Russian, but who knows... Mandsford 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable essay, creator keeps removing AfD tags and has been warned for making a legal threat. GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, and WP:SNOW, should we just delete this now and WP:SALT it, too? (Maybe even block user?) — Timneu22 · talk 14:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have reported user and IP to AIV, requested temp semi-page protection for the duration of the AfD. Hopefully that will take care of it. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore above writers don't have expertise to make judjement either were unable to write better article on this important global issue years before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postmodern z (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding editor has no other edits, and is almost certainly a WP:SOCK of user:postmodern-art. I opened a sock puppetry case. — Timneu22 · talk 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently [6] copy-vios this article. Not sure what to do.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it could also be speedily deleted (G12), should be salted based on actions of creator, socks, and IPs. GregJackP (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think qwertyus is saying that the blog article is a copy of this, not the other way around. That's weird, huh? At any rate, this article will soon be gone and likely salted! — Timneu22 · talk 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and there is no amount of rewriting that could turn this into an encyclopedia article. It is also, I sadly mention, not a very good essay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above this is a non encyclopedic essay. Also agree that it should be salted if possible. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per all above (except the smelly socks). WuhWuzDat 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a salt is unnecessary as it seems from emails I have received from the creator that she does not intend to recreate the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:37, 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) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie McKay[edit]

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

Previously deleted by AfD as non-notable and hasn't done anything since then to increase notability. Article recreated but too different to be a candidate for speedy deletion. Nikki♥311 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 - it doesn't matter if it has been expanded when the content is essentially the same. It's no different to changing "it's a fake" to "it is clearly a total and absolute fake". She's not notable and nothing has changed with that fact. !! Justa Punk !! 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - article was created by a user who also works for Shimmer. See Kacey Diamond. So this is also clearly a WP:COI issue. !! Justa Punk !! 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and upon a check Justa Punk is right about COI. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:11, 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 speedy keep. nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Country Returns[edit]

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

I think we are jumping the gun a bit on this article. While a well written, well referenced article may be possible once the release date is here, or at least closer, the current article is based largely on primary sources (Nintendo magazine and a press release) and the other references appear to be written based entirely on the press release. This doesn't do much to meet notability guidelines at present and is a bit of a crystal ball at the moment. RadioFan (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Withdrawn per all the sources noted below that will help make this article notable, looking forward to seeing the improvements.--RadioFan (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough information available to give an idea of the game beyond simply its title and the majority of Nintendo's other E3 announcements for this year have similar pages. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other stuff existing isn't a good argument to make here. Actually if you could provide a list of those other pages, they could be added to this AFD and considered for deletion as well.--RadioFan (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kid Icarus: Uprising and Mario Sports Mix are the most similar in terms of available information. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply no significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the moment. Claritas § 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) have reported on the game's announcement, so notability should not be an issue. While the article might be archaic and lacking references at the moment, there will probably be more in-depth coverage in the coming days. I don't see the need for a move as drastic as article deletion when the only thing it will do is double the work for people who spent time on setting up its "raw frame". Prime Blue (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Prime Blue. These will be reported on by IGN and other sites. So they will have third party sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but does the coverage extend beyond the press release? So far what I've read is paraphrasing the press release.--RadioFan (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the reports from reliable sources are based on primary sources, it doesn't seem like the independent sources guideline differentiates. Prime Blue (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to agree. Every year at E3 we get brief announcements at first only to have more detailed news appear in the next several days. Deleting is only going to create unnecessary work. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has a trailer it comes up this Agust and i have seen game pages with less info than that. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not quite a crystal ball-level article given that the game is actually announced, rather than just hoped for. Sources are coming; the article may have jumped the gun a wee bit, but I think this AfD has too. No biggie, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why wouldn't you keep it? It deserves its own article and it'll be fully-fledged possibly in a matter of hours. AarnKrry _{Talk to me, babycakes!} 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the overly obvious reason that it was just demonstrated at E3. Kanten (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? Trying to delete a page because there's not enough "third party sources" when it was just announced? So, so dumb. It's official, there needs to be a Wikipedia page for it, and we've got several sources. What's wrong with citing a press release, anyways? It's like saying no form of media should get a page dedicated to it until after its release. Way to try and keep Wikipedia eternally lagging. Sigh. Shadic (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep officially announced game in a major series. I might support merging it to the series article if it ends up getting cancelled, but that's extremely unlikely to happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even matter if it's canceled. Canceled games with significant publicity are still notable. ScienceApe (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep What a ridiculous proposal. This game is well confirmed now, complete with screenshots and a trailer. Snowball clause takes effect. ScienceApe (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This game has just been announced. There's a trailer for it everywhere and all gaming sites have reported on this. This shouldn't be deleted. Maplejet (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The game is on display and playable at E3, meaning that they'll be a myriad of information for the game by a variety of sources very soon (Like within hours) Also the game really isn't that far off at least in comparion to many other video games. --Deathawk (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – plenty of verifiable information to go past "stub" status even. –MuZemike 07:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per basically everybody prior to me. Jeff Silvers (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an official announcement, and while anything has the potential to be canceled, if this is removed, we would have to, in principle, remove every "future" game/movie/musical album from Wikipedia just in case they get canceled. Happinessiseasy (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough out there to confirm what this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheppens (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 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) 19:53, 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 deleted by Orangemike (CSD-A3) Jarkeld (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row: Drive-By[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased video-game, article claims that "as of yet no information is known about the game". References do not provide significant coverage. Speedy deletion template removed by IP without explanation. Claritas § 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No reliable sources found. Comment to Claritas: an article about a computer game is ineligible for speedy deletion under A7. Jarkeld (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. I don't know very much about computer games at all, I thought the 3DS was internet related. Claritas § 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "as of yet no information is known about the game" Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 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) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles[edit]

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

Previously deleted twice as non-notable. Hasn't done anything since then to increase notability. Newest version different from deleted versions, so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Nikki♥311 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 - same as what I said for Jessie McKay. This is no different to changing "it's a fake" to "it is clearly an absolute totla fake". Nothing has changed - she's not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, regardless of the subject's notability status. This version is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of either of the previous two versions. -- œ ^™ 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is per what I said about the content being expanded. It's sending the exact same message. Additional - article was created by a user who also works for Shimmer. See Kacey Diamond. So this is also clearly a WP:COI issue. !! Justa Punk !! 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, it's not. It's not the message it's sending that matters, it's the content itself which, as you said, has been expanded, thereby making it NOT "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", regardless of whether it's still sending the same message, a reasonable attempt at improvement was made, and WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. The COI is an unrelated matter. -- œ ^™ 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and I'll leave it at that. !! Justa Punk !! 03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and not notable. Majority of article primarily sourced from a non notable promotion. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:13, 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 Incubate/Userify. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Feinsod[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod. Article appears to be a fluff piece for a non-notable film maker. No reliable sources provided and none found outside of social media sites. TN X Man 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My edit-conflicted AfD read as follows: Non-notable advertisement for a filmmaker. No visible references. Contested PROD. No consensus at previous AfD over four years ago, that's long enough to incubate. Also, its recent autobiographer Feinsodville (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. I have flagged it {{db-g11}}. — Jeff G. ツ 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal coverage, even less when Wikipedia and imdb mirrors are removed, none of which amount to the sort of coverage required to meet WP:GNG. COI editor has not bothered to add references. Nuttah (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five years since the first AFD and still not properly sourced. Looks like vanispamcrufterisement. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last AfD, we have sharpened the rules for BLPs. This is a completely unsourced BLP. It is filled with red links of his non-notable films. 'Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Incubate? While in in total agreement that the article requires cleanup and sourcing to remain n mainspace, it looks like this one could be deleted simply because of WP:NOEFFORT. Since his work as director does get positive review, and non-notables do not, why not take it from mainspace and send it to WP:Incubation for cleanup... and encourage that the articles about this person in The New York Times, New York Post, et.al. be used for sourcing? If it does not get done, it won't be returning to mainspace and will be deleted anyway, and so no loss to the project for giving it one last chance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has had five years of incubation and it still stinks. If you think it would be a simple matter to bring it up to snuff, please go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do understand its five years forgotten in mainspace, the changes made to BLP, and have no issue with it being sent to AFD. Sadly, I had never heard of the subject (or many, many others) before it (and they) got sent to AFD..... but as fixing what I can is what I do... I am willing to tackle the problem. As I do have other projects ongoing and a life away from these pages, I request that it might be userfied to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Mark L. Feinsod so I can give the attention over the next week or three that it has sorely lacked. I could then check back with the nominator, and if he agrees, move a fixed version to Incubation for review by other editors. If it's better, it might return. if not, then it's gone. A win-win for all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but only because Michael is one of the few who would make a suggestion like this and actually follow up on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. TN X Man 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are gonna make me blush. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MusicReview[edit]

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

Apparently, a non-notable website. I could not find reliable third-party sources. The current biography of the website was copied and pasted from its "about us" page by Sergio Pereira (old revision), who in 2009, "joined the [MusicReview] management team and has made a significant contribution in features, reviews and written articles." It should be noted that this article has been even semi-protected (difference) due to "excessive sock puppetry". Canniba loki 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having looked at the site, I agree with all of the nom's rationales. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GoogleNews turns up a bunch of articles that are reviews about music, but nothing about MusicReview the website. Of the all of the third-party references provided, only one of them still mentions MusicReview, but it is only a mention. I might also want to suggest blacklisting the website from Wikipedia. There have been several editors, presumably the MusicReview staff, that I have seen whose sole purpose is to add a MusicReview review to every album page they can find. Most recently it was Skatchrsa (talk · contribs), but I know there have been others such as 41.185.89.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fezmar9 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 41.185.89.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would be another. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have crossed out my suggestion of blacklisting the url. It seems like it was all coming from one user who has since agreed to remove all references to MusicReview until the outcome of this nomination. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just noticed this now, I apologise if I have violated any terms out of inexperience, or stepped on anyone's toes. Please can I direct your attention to this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Review_site:_MusicReview. Please let me know if we can do anything to rectify this problem. Skatchrsa (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (GMT2)

'Comment: Hi everyone, thanks again for everyone's input. After extensive discussions with IllaZilla over here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Review site: MusicReview, and having read the links kind provided, I have attempted to edit the MusicReview page along the guidelines mentioned. I kindly ask that you all please revisit this page, and provide your input.

With regards to the spam issue, I now understand Wikipedia's criteria, and apologise for inadvertant indiscretions. I have removed any and all links to MusicReview from infoboxes and album pages, and have done the same for the additions from other journalists. If you find any further links to MusicReview, please remove them, or notify me to remove them. No further entries will be made to album pages, unless the site is approved as a significant source, and is added to the list of accepted music review websites over here Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT. I will apply for this in later months, should the deletion issue be resolved.

In the event that this page is still not acceptable, and in the event of it being deleted, may I kindly request that you userfy it as User:Skatchrsa/MusicReview so that the relevant alterations can be made over time to improve it to meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Many thanks once again for your help, and particular thanks to IllaZilla --Skatchrsa (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2010 (GMT2)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, promotional. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transactional funding[edit]

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

The article itself has no references or third-party coverage, and after checking the link to the one external site, this appears to be blatant advertising. What's more, the author has created a number of redirects to this page (well, I changed them to redirects; they were created wrong), and this leads me to believe even more that this is an attempt at advertising. I am not a subject matter expert here, so I asked for help at the Finance project, but based on the lack of sources, one link to an advert site, and multiple pages created, I find this to be blatant advertising and am nominating under this premise. — Timneu22 · talk 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I smell canned pork products. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I am deleting the blatant promotional link. John M Baker (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw this mentioned in the Finance project. With the promotional link gone I'm not seeing how this is advertising. This appears to be an established financing method in real estate. Figureofnine (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree necessarily (again, not an expert) but all google searches for this also seem to be advertising related, and not appropriate definitions from reliable finance sources. — Timneu22 · talk 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the reliable sourcing. I am no expert either. I just garnered that this was an established industry term, even though, I agree, it seems to be mainly used in a commercial context. Here's a source: http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2010/05/27/using-transactional-funding-in-your-real-estate-wholesaling-business/ Figureofnine (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, author left me a message on my talk page, also encouraging me to visit the website. Argh. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An advertisement masquerading as an article, referenced to a blog. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I'm an agent and know of many people considering entering the short sale business which is expedited by transactional loans. However, because it is so new, not many people know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.183.140 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding IP user has few if any other edits. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 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) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaya Heart[edit]

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

Female author of sex books who does not seem to meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent sources. Claritas § 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable for lack of any independent coverage about her. Google search finds no reliable sources. Google News finds only book signings. Google book search finds only her own books. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cutler Rookie Cards[edit]

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

No sources, but even if there were, I cannot see a reason why this is a notable topic. There are very few cards notable enough to have their own article, and Jay Cutler cards do not fall into that category. — Timneu22 · talk 18:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree, there is no notability here independent of Mr. Cutler. I can't even see any reason to redirect this or merge the material. Is there a wiki about trading cards? I'm also concerned that there are no reliable sources attached to this, which leads me to suspect that this may be a form of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with the fact that there are not very many notable Mr. Cutler cards. The industry has changed quite a bit and the Total value of his rookie cards would be well over $70,000. Many of his cards are valued between $200 and $1,500. Most are also rare and numbered under 25. This is a reference piece of an iconic player of the 2006 rookie class in the hobby. There is a major difference between vinatge cards and modern cards. Vintage cards only have 1 or 2 rookie cards. Cutler himself has over 180 autographed cards from over 40 sets. There is currently no single overview of the collection of Jay Cutler Rookie Cards. Advertising would be to list the price of each card. This article is to talk about the differences of the sets and how Cutler is unique for the 2006 trading card season. If there is an issue with the Player than that is a personal prefence. If this was done on Brett Favrethan there would be no issue because many people who are not familiar with the sport know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardbroke (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue over the player; I know who Jay Cutler is. But the nomination is about his cards receiving a separate article, and I just don't think this is warranted. Mickey Mantle has a couple of the most valuable cards of all time, but he doesn't have an article. — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else would like to take the liberty of creating a page for Micky Mantle they are more than welcome. I don't see how a page of this doesn't fall under the category of being encyclopedia worthy. This isn't about a player as much as it is about a hobby. For car collectors the different models of Ford Msutangs would be a litgitimate page. Their is a Wikipedia page for every single generation of that model of a mustang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardbroke (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask why an article on collectible items is grounds for deletion. If you read my article their are unique aspects to collecting Cutler cards from each set from 2006 that is the detail I am trying to go into. Jay Cutler is unique from other rookies of that year, but I don't see any difference of pointing out the nuences of Cutlers rookie cards over the differences of dfiferent collectable toys such as Barbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardbroke (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely no sources in the article that even explain why the topic is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict: the following was added by CardbrokeCitation I have jsut created the page and have begun to reference it. Currently I have had to stop to make an argument to keep the page open.
Note that this is AFD, the article will remain "open" for a while. — Timneu22 · talk 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I though I had to make my argument in the next few minutes.Cardbroke (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Cardbroke[reply]
Delete This would merit one sentence in Jay Cutler's article, something to the effect of "His rookie card has sold for as much as $_____". The prospect of having individual articles about a players' trading cards is horrifying, and even by the relatively low threshold we set for sports articles, this can't step over the bar. We have articles about sets of trading cards (e.g. 2005 Topps, 2001 Donruss), which is fine, but the only one that merits its own article is the legendary T206 Honus Wagner card. Other than that, only one worshipful article per athlete please. Mandsford 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that there are articles on individual playboy models I would consider this less horrifying. This type of comment just leads me to believe that Wikipedia is prejudice against valuable information on card collecting. Articles on comic book heros seem to be OK, but something as complex as modern era card collecting seems to be too much. Truly there is a lack of information on the card collecting industry and individual players. This information is needed on the top Rookies being collected. There are only a handfull of Rookies from each year that warrant this type of article. 2006 would be QBs Young, Lienart, Cutler,adn maybe Whitehurst and WR Brandong Marshall, RBs Reggie Bush, Joeseph Addai, and Maurice Jones Drew. There is honestly too much information to be on a single article for every major rookie card. This is why I put it up on Wiki instead of Twitter. 151.151.109.9 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Cardbroke[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Up (photography) and The straight up[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

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

The contributor to this article has edited only this article (and the duplicate The straight up). No valid references or third-party coverage is provided by this current single-purpose account, and no valid google hits for this term. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unformatted comment from article author Hi. I am the deputy editor of i-D magazine and I am trying to insert an entry but am finding it very difficult - please may someone email me to help! thank you [email protected]
There appears to be a conflict of interest with you creating this page. — Timneu22 · talk 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it exists, let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept, such as it is, is already explained in detail at i-D; we don't also need these two minimal articles in addition. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 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, fails WP:MUSIC. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Souls[edit]

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

This band does not seem to meet notability requirements - none of the twelve items at WP:MUSIC are met - and the article certainly fails verifiability requirements. Specifically, I can find absolutely no significant coverage of the band under either of its names - all there is is either here or at the website of the former record label - and only one album has been released on any record label (and then, it's not a notable record label). The article claims a 24 date national tour but there is no evidence of this and no indication it was notable.

Given that they are no longer represented by a record label it seems unlikely this will change, but it would be speculation to assume it would anyway. Delete. I42 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with leanings toward an A7 speedy. Won't tag though. Nothing of the sources given are usable for this purpose. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:MUSIC and offers no quality references. Links to MySpace and others smell an awful lot like promotion. — Timneu22 · talk 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not deleting: Band played with great acts like Kittie, Cartel and so on. Albums can be bought worldwide. I have two. Greetz from Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.150.102 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not connote notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then put the article into my USER ARTICLE ROOM, so I can work on it... Maybe I can find some sources which helps the article. Next week I will get my own computer back, so I can work at it. Goroth —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 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 redirect to location of Osama bin Laden. Shimeru 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brooks Faulkner[edit]

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

Only notable for one event so fails WP:N/CA, and WP:BLP1E. Should be renamed because the perpetrator does not meet the criteria for an individual article according to Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A single news item isn't enough to establish notability. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Since this person is not low-profile, this article should not be a candidate for deletion. Considering this person is featured on every news channel and news outlet, it seems safe to say he is no longer low-profile. Samorat (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Firstly this is not a criminal act he has not been charged with anything. The act he committed is beyond notable. Media and forums had stated that this is amoung the most interesting and unique events. A large cult following has also developed because of his actions. Please see WP:OSTRICH, the article is well source from multiple reliable sources. There is no doubt that this will receive further coverage in the future.Valoem ^talk 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep--Why would you remove it? Is the claim false? Just from the other responses I take it that this is a well known fact. There is no hate speech here. So why would anyone want to remove a fact? If someone thinks it is insufficiently important then that person should not read it. Otherwise keep your censorship to yourself.

Redirect to location of Osama bin Laden since Faulkner's done nothing else to be notable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really can't see how this passes WP:BLP1E. Sure, he's been on a lot of news lately, but that's because this all happened less than a week ago. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets the requirements for notability. Substantial third party coverage.Greg Bard 05:21, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Cook's Yellow Angel Food Cake[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion because this recipe did not appear to me to fall into any speedy deletion category; I replaced it with a PROD tag which was removed without comment or improvement. Simply put, recipes are specifically covered by WP:NOTGUIDE; Wikipedia is not a cookbook. This may also be a copyright violation of a Betty Crocker cookbook, but WP:NOTGUIDE is sufficiently clear. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Author has recently made a copyright violation so the Betty Crocker cookbook theory seems plausible. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concerns about WP:COPYVIO, definite case of WP:NOTGUIDE. Maybe this does better at Wikihow? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to article. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 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) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Gawad[edit]

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

fails WP:BLP1E. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and is basically notable for not being white in a single flurry of news stories. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom has it right, and I don't think even the 1E amounts to a claim for notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 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 speedily deleted by Toddst1, A7. — Timneu22 · talk 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MorningStar Music Publishers[edit]

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

Clear WP:COI by the author, indicating promotional usage. More importantly, the article never states why the company is important and there are no third-party references supplied. — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 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) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Move[edit]

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

No indication of importance, unreleased game. No sources or third-party reviews. No CSD applies to games. — Timneu22 · talk 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _noisy jinx ^huh? 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
userify so the creator can work on it until its notable (after its released of course). draynah (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 15 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) 14:52, 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) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle Lewis[edit]

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

Appears very much to fail WP:Athlete. No WP notable amateur results are provided and an google search does not seem to turn any up. Info on him seems to suggest he is at most a somewhat notable tennis builder and veterans player in and around N.C. Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG or ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 01:52, 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 delete. A7, and G11. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TweeterGames[edit]

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

Delete. No outside coverage and one source is from wiki. Notability not proven. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, seems like A7, "unremarkable company". — Timneu22 · talk 15:12, 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) 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Jab Hum Tum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although this article has previously already been nominated one time (see the 2009 nomination), the article context does not show what makes this TV-show notable, and is a real clutter. It needs to be entirely rewritten too. Heymid (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:N, there's a fair bit of English language coverage- Times of India articles here - [7] and [8], Hindustan Times article, [9]. There are probably plenty of Indian sources around too. State of the article is very poor, but this shouldn't be a reason to delete. Claritas § 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I would suggest that some links with significant coverage to the article should be added to the article. Heymid (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I've sourced and stubified it. Certainly keepable in current state. I've also flagged it for rescue to see if any other editors can add content. Claritas § 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment – Good job! Before, there was a "Plot" section in the main article. Did you split the text into smaller character sections? Heymid (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows results. Just go through the pages of summaries, and you see Times of Indie, the Hindu, and other major news sites talking about it. How could they have 400+ episodes in just two seasons made in less than two years? 365 days in a year, so if they worked constantly, then it'd just take them 2-3 days to make an entire episode? Also how many days a week does it come on? Dream Focus 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version seems pretty straight-forward, and better than many such stubs. "Re-writing" as the nom suggested, and expansion through regular editing, are both surmounatble concerns that do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep television series on major television channel... can be expanded and fixed with a little effort and expertise... Arskwad (talk) 03:57, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of technology companies in Richmond, British Columbia[edit]

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

I don't think that Wikipedia needs a list of companies in one city in Canada. It also appears that it fails WP:DIRECTORY because it focuses on one city. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ref on the Talk page [10] indicates that the city is home to several of the largest high-tech businesses in the province. Canuckle (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory. There is no inclusion criteria and there the term 'technology' is vague, making it indistriminate. Most of the entries in the list are to multinationals which happen to have a branch office in the city. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 18 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) 08:31, 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) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Envy Theory[edit]

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

Pure WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. Sources cited, but the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Suggest WP:USERFY. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This theory has yet to receive any substantial acceptance by sicentists. The main source referenced was by the author of the theory. The other sources releate mostly to the MNS and no to the topic. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a promotion of the author's own theory. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This is an important contribution to "science in the process of discovery" by a distinguished Yale psychiatrist. It is a scholarly work that expounds upon an unelaborated proposition ("envy")in classical psychoanalysis. Please give it a chance. {User: plantforestsoil} June 15, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantforestsoil (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching the Yale University website, I find no indications that Dr. Ninivaggi is "distinguished" in any way -- he is an associate professor of clinical child psychiatry. I can find no reviews of this book either at its entry in Google Books nor at Google Scholar. Since the author if this article has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than to expound upon Dr. Ninivaggi's theories, one may reasonably presume that the author is Dr. Ninivaggi himself, which makes this article original research. If one does not make that leap, the article still fails notability guidelines, as no one other than Dr. Ninivaggi and Plantforestsoil (talk · contribs) seem to have taken any notice of this theory. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but let's not bite the user. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 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. db-author 7 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen Doctrine[edit]

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

CSD was declined, but I believe this term is absolutely WP:MADEUP. Google searches for Nielsen Doctrine reveal nothing, but when put in conjunction with other terms like "Mayaguez" it is clear that no such terms exist. I have requested (on the talk page) that the editor provide sources. None have been provided, and frankly I doubt any exist. Pure hoax page unless I can be proved otherwise. — Timneu22 · talk 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Whether or not a hoax, is a newly (June, 2010) coined neologism not in general use, per admission of creator on article talk page. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan's point is better shown by this edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability, either in the article or found on searching. In the talk page post linked to above by TransporterMan, the author of the article in effect tells us that the article is created to promote a person (the claimed originator of the expression). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Article creator has recognized on article talk page that article should be deleted as a neologism. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no record of a "Kenneth Nielsen" participating in the U.S.A.'s rescue of the crew of the Mayaguez, and no support for any of the rest of this fantasy. Mandsford 22:03, 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) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie and the Ferocious Beast (Dubbed)[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made (?) YouTube version of a TV series. No reliable sources given, none found via Google. Unverifiable. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete either a hoax or very, very non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncited, and possibly a hoax. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:47, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wherewolves[edit]

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

This article provides some references (yet not really any notability), so {{db-band}} didn't seem to apply. However, this article is not worthy of inclusion because of lack of importance, as pointed out from the article itself: currently working on their first album and it is expected they will embark on a tour. Whoop-dee. Not notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references are hardly reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC's criteria for notability. Huon (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very common problem on these pages. A band with limited notability wants a Wikipedia article, but can't come up with the WP:RS. And we wind up here. They feel insulted, Wikipedians feel trapped in a time sink. I'm going with the delete on this one on the grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of promising new bands. Jusdafax 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, possibly WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 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 deleted (CSD G11) by Fastily. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialyzer reuse[edit]

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

This article is written like a WP:ESSAY, provides zero sources, and is borderline WP:ADVERT for ClearFlux. Completely non-encyclopedic without sources. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant spam. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 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, per WP:BLP1E. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhambulat Khatokhov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Moved from previous AFD. Text included follows:

Second nomination: First nom, above, ended in deletion for intrinsic non-notability. Though article has apparently been rewritten since prior nomination, same reasoning would appear to apply. Note that there is a claim mentioned in the Guardian article sourced in the article that the boy did hold the world's record for weight at 3 years, 2 months, but certified by a questionable source. It was not clear in the prior nomination whether or not a world's record might suffice to make him notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this as maintenance, I as nom abstain. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I really can't decide whether there is enough significant coverage to !vote either way. There's some, but not very much. Claritas § 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage from gnews [11], and google only links to mirror sites [12]. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows significant coverage from three media sources.

Boy as big as an elephant

The Sun - Mar 2, 2007

The youngster Dzhambulat Khatokhov nicknamed Jambik who is the size of a :baby elephant is the subject of Channel 4's documentary Bodyshock World's :Biggest ...

Related web pages

World's Biggest Boy

Channel 4 News - Nov 26, 2008

At just seven years old Dzhambulat KhatokhovJambik for short is four foot :three inches tall and weighs 16 stone as much as a baby elephant He :dwarfs his ...

Related web pages

He gets coverage, so he is notable. Notability is not temporary. Other sources are already in the article. Dream Focus 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument currently matches the "In the news" argument, see wp:INTHENEWS. This is one of the many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wonder how you found this AfD, it was not on the rescue list till you added it... LibStar (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to childhood obesity as a notable example. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a wikipedia article about BodyShock U.K. Channel 4 TV series, about extremities in humans. This TV series were aired worldwide. On the other hand, the seria about Dzambik, show his big influence in Russia, where he is a very known (media exposed) person and a wrestler who was presented on many TV shows, and world fame becouse of his weight status. As seen from the references, he was also mentioned in two big newspapers The Sun and The Guardian. If this article fails to match criteria on Wikipedia, I assume that all the other persons from Bodyshock should fail for the very same reason. -- Prunk (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the vote above mas made by the article's creator. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - world's largest child? Besides the problem of exactly pinning down the definition of "child", who says this? The program that makes more money if more people watch the show (and so having a motive to over-sensationalize?)? I want more proof than that. The Guinness Book of World Records, maybe? Anyway, I agree with Warden; if he is the largest child, a mention in childhood obesity would be warranted, but he's not that notable otherwise. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any definition of child would include a 10 year old, wouldn't it? Dream Focus 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally dubious claim. Even if he were the fattest kid in the world, it would still fall under WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong talk 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for additional references, showing up that the kid actually holds the Guinness World Records title for being the heaviest kid on the planet, since 2003. He also reached fame in Japan, where they invited him to film a documentary, so there must be additional references in Japanesse language, meaning that it doesn't fail at WP:BLP1E. -- Prunk (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that he holds a Guinness record have been questioned in The Guardian article, so this argument should be deemed invalid, see the article here : [13]. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another video clip featuring Dzhambik in BodyShock documentary is available from Youtube, I am unsure if it can be added as a reference, but definitelly worth watching. -- Prunk (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#FREAKSHOW, which should be a policy, and WP:BLP, which is. Would anyone commenting here want their ten-year-old child to be written about on one of the world's most visited web sites in a way that will hold him up to ridicule as he goes through his teenage years? Or does the fact that he lives in a far away country [of which] we know nothing mean that he is fair game for such prurience? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? No one is ridiculing him. He's been on television for this, seems happy with his life, and is quite popular and loved in Russia. Dream Focus 06:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about what we would do with our children, and on the contrary, it seems that he enjoys it to be known for his obesity. It's also a fact that he owns the title of the heaviest kid, making him notable enough to place him on Wikipedia. -- Prunk (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E, especially considering that the person is only 11. Yes tabloids love this sort of thing, as do tabloid like TV programmes, but that does not mean we should have an article. I don't care whether he seems happy with his life - he is only a child and this is one of those occasions where we should be cautious, and try to avoid harm. Quantpole (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP1E and because Wikipedia isn't a gossip sheet. Also per Phil Bridger. Them From Space 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Seems to be famous and got coverage only because of a TV program featuring him, maybe some content can be merged in that article. There is a chance when he grows older that he will be mentioned here, but not now. The Guardian article ("...a certificate from a Russian organisation that registered his apparent world record....The certificate claims affiliation with the Guinness Book of Records, but a Guinness spokesman said they had no record of Dzhambik and were unlikely to have a "biggest child" category") suggests thar the claim he holds any "world record" or "Guiness record" is indeed questionable. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a trashy sensationalist tabloid, nor a freak show. Reyk _YO! 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP of a child, BLP1E, few reliable sources, some of which have been questioned. BodyShock and childhood obesity could inherit anything that gets kept. - BalthCat (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete have some basic human decency... that's what BLP1E is supposed to do... wikipedia isn't supposed to turn every persons life into a tabloid just because they were mentioned in a couple news stories... let alone a kid... dont dress up hack journalism as "the sum of all human knowledge"... ughh Arskwad (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not the protector of humankind. People are googling "Brian Peppers" all day long regardless of whether he has a wikipedia article. That being said, he does not appear to hold a Guinness World Record, which would often escape BLP1E. Since coverage is not overly significant, seeing the pile on at this point, i think a redirect to Childhood obesity would be ok.--Milowent (talk) 16:59, 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 Speedied by Orangemike. --B (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica[edit]

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

I strongly suspect this article is a hoax. The area that has supposedly been claimed by the USA in Antarctica corresponds to the unshaded area marked as "unclaimed" on the maps included in the article! It also conflicts with our article Territorial claims of Antarctica. Apparently this territory was "organized" in 2009, but I can't find any news reference to it. And apparently the claim was under the Guano acts, which sounds most unconvincing - it seems as if it is a claim made by citizens not the state itself, which makes me wonder if this is being discussed as a microstate project? TheGrappler (talk) TheGrappler (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my official capacity as Emperor of Antarctica, Laurasia, and Gondwanaland and Lord Protector of Kerguelen, I pronounce this article null and void. Besides, it would appear to contain obvious untruth: The Act enables citizens of the U.S. to take possession of islands containing guano deposits such as Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land. Guano deposits in Antarctica? Antarctica is an island? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Tagged for CSD G3 as an obvious hoax. The United States, as a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, makes no terrirorial claim on Antarctica, though reserves the right to do so in the future. Movementarian (Talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (hoax). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a hoax, please hold deletion until further review. An application is currently before the US Congress to appoint a committee of states,

for the territory and a Trust claim is currently

pending in Federal Court in New York.

You can also contact the US Department of State Boarders and Disputes division or the CIA World Factbook they should have been given notice by the State Department to change their entry for this area that was claimed United States territory and has been since 1929 and 1935. Usmblandela (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmblandela (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmblandela (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got a Source for that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link to DRV does nothing. The article has not been deleted, making DRV's entry into this completely moot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Paul[edit]

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

autobiography, can find no reliable sources that provide significant coverage, imdb profile doesn't suggest notability Hekerui (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Film carer fails WP:ENT. Searches show individual fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 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. As a copyright violation of www.thestudiotour.com -- no earlier version is copyvio-free. Shimeru 06:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Horror Nights (Hollywood)[edit]

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

None of the current sources appear to meet WP:RS, and all the sources I could find at reliable sources were minor mentions - usually in lists of happenings -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because there is the same lack of reliable sources of information:

~~Delete~~ - There are some haunted attraction articles which have reliable sources, but these are not among them. I've tried to find sources for most of these Halloween franchise articles without success, and when I tried to remove primary sources (under my previous username) I was told by an editor that there are not any secondary sources. --~T P W 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If these really are "unquestionably [the] largest Halloween event in the United States" as stated by Kiwisoup, then I will be happy to reverse my position. Deletion debates should consider the potential for reliable sources, and I don't think the fact that the attractions are large is sufficient argument for there being such potential. I'm hoping a contributor to this debate can convince me otherwise.--~T P W 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing this to weak keep per Krispy101's sourcing attempt below. The CNN article is only a trivial mention so it doesn't do anything to establish notability, but the local coverage seems to be extensive enough that it probably barely passes. Being a successful business venture does not, in and of itself, confer any notability, and I continue to be surprised that an operation this large hasn't received any significant coverage in major media outlets. Having worked at a notable haunted attraction which has been featured by the Travel Channel I know that their coverage, although well-produced, is essentially a promotional piece that doesn't add any encyclopedic value.--~T P W 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is my first attempt at a reply to a discussion here, so I apologize if I do it incorrectly. PhantomSteve, exactly what type of reliable sources are you looking for? Have you looked at the official Halloween Horror Nights Website, run by Universal Studios Orlando: http://www.halloweenhorrornights.com/orlando and here's a link to a TV commercial for last year's event which I'm sure is seen by a wide array of people worldwide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIfCjWK60A0 and here is a link to an interview with one of the main producers of the event from last year's event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubTcYghliY Hope this helps! HHN4Life81 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) — HHN4Life81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your reply is just fine, HHN4Life81. What Phantomsteve (and Wikipedia policy) is looking for is third party sources. The examples you give are created by HHN to promote it. reliable sources have no interest in the subject, aren't paid by the subject, and may say good or bad things about it. They have no vested interest in promoting the place. These sources are very difficult to find for this venue, and even though I have changed my position to "weak keep" I expect that this article will probably deleted at some point because I don't expect the sources are ever going to get any better.--~T P W 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The articles have potential as they discuss two major Halloween events. I feel that the issue of primary sources can easily be resolved with work from editors. Deleting an article will not help Wikipedia; Improving it will.--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did look for reliable, independent sources - and couldn't find any. If you could find some, Snowman Guy, I'd be quite happy to change my mind on these two articles, and keep them. I prefer to keep articles if sources can be found, but if not then I think that they should be deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles in question are about the unquestionably largest Halloween event in the United States, and many would even sayn the world. I came to you, Pahantomsteve, asking you for help because an ip user was vandalising the less popular Hollywood page, and you seemed to side with the vandal and now you're solution is to just delete both pages? I really have a problem with admins like you who just want to stifle everyone else and delete things and point out what's wrong with something instead of trying to fix it. I'm very sorry that I ever asked for help, I'll be sure to never do it again. Kiwisoup (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say last week that I had looked for reliable sources for these articles - your response was basically that it was my responsibility to try harder to find sources! Last Friday, I said I did spend some time looking for sources - please don't "encourage [me] to try to do better and see if you can find any supporting information"! I looked, and didn't find anything reliable - if you think it is notable, I would encourage you to find something! I am considering putting this up for deletion, but will think on it some more and decide next week - see (diff) - and in that time, no reliable sources were added to either article. I didn't side with the vandal, I mentioned that there were no reliable sources to show which information (yours or the vandal) was correct - and there still are not.

I am sorry that you seem to think that if you ask an admin to look harder for sources, that they are duty-bound to do so. I did look, and didn't find them. I gave you a few days notice of my intention to put it up for deletion - it wasn't as if I did it without giving any warning. If you look at my contributions, you will see many times where I looked for sources (from articles which had been unsourced for perhaps 3 years) and found some - look at these diffs: Manual Carvalho da Silva, Desi Slava, Vasil Slavov, André Sonko, Richard Vickers, David Allan Walker - to name just 6 articles. Look at this article which I brought to GA status from a 1-line stub which was inaccurate even in that sentence - following lots of research, finding reliable sources; look at William Stanley (inventor), which I created from scratch, with plenty of reliable sources - which currently has Good Article status, and is working on having Featured Article status. What is the difference between all of those articles and the 2 which I have nominated at this AfD? They had reliable independent sources which allowed the information to be verified.

I truly am sorry that you feel that I have, I don't know, betrayed you - but I feel that I have been perfectly fair, I have tried my best to find some sources which could be used - and gave you a few days notice of my intention to bring the articles here. I am not siding with the vandal, or turning against you. The only side I am on is that of Wikipedia, with it's verifiability and notability criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-If Wikipedia wants to delete this article, then I want to delete Wikipedia. I don't think the moderators over here really understand anything about how substantial of an event Halloween Horror Nights- Orlando is. If you delete the page, I just won't use Wikipedia anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohaaron (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC) — Ohaaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way, but if the event is such a substantial event, I would expect to have been able to find significant coverage at reliable independent sources, and as I said, I was unable to find that. If you can, please feel free to add them to the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find absolutely no reason to delete this page. Halloween Horror Nights is a multi-million dollar event that has been running for 20 years. It attracts very large numbers of tourists to one of the largest theme parks in the United States and has been successful year after year. Honestly, if you can't find any sources, you must have never used an Internet search engine in your life. Or do you just sit there and expect other people to do the work for you rather than trying to find sources yourself? It has been covered by the Orlando Sentinel, Screamscape, Attractions Magazine, and other publications. That's from one page of Google. What's your excuse?Chitoryu12 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No reputable, independent sources? (I've only looked for NEWS CHANNELS and WEBSITES here, so apologies if there is lack of concentration on the event, but I'm sure you see my point.)

CNN Small article on Halloween events featuring HHN 19 (2009) WESH 9 News in Florida having a search for Halloween Horror Nights, plenty of results there. About.com article on HHN. Orlando Sentinel Photo Gallery of HHN.

And finally, a travel channel documentary on the event in 2002 (I think) called The art of the scare which you can watch here [part 1] I hope this helps with the deletion and makes you seriously reconsider.

KrisKrispy101 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can see the point about the lack of sources for a lot of the info on these two pages (Hollywood and Orlando versions), and how that makes "vandalism" hard to "prove". But deleting the page doesn't solve the problem, since this interesting info would then be gone. I am sure there there are sources out there, and I will seek to help find those. This deletion nomination alerted to me the situation these articles are in, and I hope we have the chance to help improve these articles together. Keep it! --Mtjaws (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to question the veracity of any deletion request is the Howl-O-Scream articles. They have far fewer independent, reliable sources than the HHN articles, and yet THEY aren't at risk of deletion. Since when did two articles about similar events get treated differently? Chitoryu12 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chitoryu12, we try to focus a deletion debate on the article(s) being discussed instead of other stuff. I've known about the Howl-O-Scream articles for a long time, and I agree that they're in horrible condition. By all means, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but please try to keep this discussion about the merits of these articles.--~T P W 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My suggestion would be to combine Hallowe'en Horror Nights (Orlando) and Hallowe'en Horror Nights (Hollywood) into Hallowe'en Horror Nights, which is currently just a disambiguation page leading onlyu to the Hollywood/Orlando pages. I think the resulting page may need to be cut down a tad, but the events are noteworthy (and well attended enough) to keep--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible Keep: This is definitely the wrong time to consider the HHN article page for deletion considering fans are expecting the press release to be released this week. This information has been verified by the official HHN Twitter account (@HorrorNights) ran by the creative director, Mr. John Murdy. He is also the source of information fans receive, excluding rumors. I see no reason to consider this page for deletion, especially with this timing. I vote to keep the page and to keep it as an individual article. Though similar, HHN Orlando and Hollywood are not fully identical. Especially with the news fans have received this year.

Anukii (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Anukii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - keep in mind that press releases are not, in any sense, reliable sources. They are self-published promotional pieces and should not be considered. The problem with HHN is that no third-party sources are taking their press releases and rewriting them into articles; this is why it's only a barely notable subject, at best.--~T P W 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Strong Keep'": Never done this before, but seeing that this page might be deleted forced me into action. This is, without a doubt, the largest Halloween Event in the country. Specifically the Orlando event - it's celebrating its 20th year, and this page needs to exist. One of the chief historic accounts of the event, the HHN Vault, closed down a couple months ago. Currently, this wikipedia page seems to house the only historical information on the first 16 years of the event. The Web site http://www.horrornightnightmares.com is devoted to the events, but does not feature a history page. This is what fans of the site are currently relying on, after the closing of the previously widely popular HHN Vault. There's also http://www.hhnrumors.com for news on the event. This event is a huge deal in Florida theme parks and deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discoliz (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Discoliz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, none of those sources would come under Wikipedia's criteria for reliable independent sources. I'll also comment on the sources referred to above while I'm here: the CNN coverage is a very minor mention of HHN (in one sentence, listed with other similar events); the other sources (WESH, etc) are more impressive - but I get ~~two~~the impression~~s: firstly,~~ that ~~they are based on press releases (and so not truly independent); secondly,~~ they are local coverage. I will gladly concede that HHN has great local significance - but this is not the Florida Wikipedia (or even the United States Wikipedia) but the English Language Wikipedia - if there is not even significant coverage of the events nationally (let alone internationally), how can it be counted as meeting the notability criteria for inclusion? Although I appreciate the work done by Krispy101 to find sources, I am still not convinced that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but getting the "impression" that something is based on a press release doesn't invalidate a source just because you THINK something. I think you need substantial proof if is the reason you say a source that otherwise meets the criteria is good enough. You are being so ridiculous and stubborn; there are countless articles of much less notability that have no sources at all and you are on this crusade to have this important article deleted. So any news coverage that lists the specific names of haunted houses and scarezones is someone just reiterating what a press release says? I'm sorry but the names are the names, what else do you expect people to refer to them as? Kiwisoup (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the "press release" bit of my comment above, as you have a fair point. However, all the coverage seems to be local. As to your point about an article which just "lists the specific names...": if the coverage is just that (one in a list of names), then that is not significant coverage.

The whole purpose of the Articles for deletion process is to allow there to be a discussion. Not everyone will agree - but if you took the time to look at my history of contributions to AfDs (including the ones which I have nominated), you will see that I have changed my !vote on occasions - when I feel that the point has been made to my satisfaction. In this case, that has not happened yet - this appears to be a subject of importance locally, but not nationally or internationally (as far as press coverage goes). This isn't a vendetta for me - as I said, if the arguments are convincing to me, then I'd withdraw my nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator, please visit this link. http://www.google.com/search?q=halloween+horror+nights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IdcgTKLyN4PGlQfbnoSrAQ&ved=0CJoDEKUC&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:100,tlul:1991,tluh:2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.207.107 (talk) 15:32, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wherewolves[edit]

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

This article provides some references (yet not really any notability), so {{db-band}} didn't seem to apply. However, this article is not worthy of inclusion because of lack of importance, as pointed out from the article itself: currently working on their first album and it is expected they will embark on a tour. Whoop-dee. Not notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references are hardly reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC's criteria for notability. Huon (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very common problem on these pages. A band with limited notability wants a Wikipedia article, but can't come up with the WP:RS. And we wind up here. They feel insulted, Wikipedians feel trapped in a time sink. I'm going with the delete on this one on the grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of promising new bands. Jusdafax 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, possibly WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 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. Shimeru 09:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Haydar Bengi[edit]

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

Individual is not notable. See WP:ONEEVENT WP:MEMORIAL Marokwitz (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant amount of media coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is Ali Haydar Bengi's claim to fame? Being a notable, world renowned peace activist or for being killed by Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention him in the Gaza flotilla raid article though. Keep his quote and info about him. Use media sources to cite him in Gaza article.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, keep a mention in Gaza flotilla raid.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would be OK with merge and redirect. Classic example of WP:BIO1E, and no reason has been given as to why the information about this subject needs to stand outside of Gaza flotilla raid or related articles. The "keep" vote has cited "significant media coverage" which alone is not enough for an appropriate fork. Location (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge, maalesef. Takabeg (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a clear case of WP:BIO1E. --Kslotte (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Gaza flotilla raid if there's any non-redundant content. No reason not to keep the redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. All persons killed in the Flotilla Raid meet the standard set out in WP:BIO1E for inclusion, because the psychology and characters of the victims is relevant for historians who are trying to understand what happened on the boat, and why they were shot. The fact that a victim had NO OTHER notable events in his life (including NO extremist affiliations, NO terrorist activities ...) is precisely the sort of thing that is relevant to this task, and a stand-alone article on that person is the place to convey it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Getting killed in a notable incident does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a confusion about Memorials. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." There are voters who say the article should not be included since Wikipedia is not a memorial, however Ali Heyder Bengi is not friend, relative, or acquaintance of anyone. Kavas (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect into Gaza flotilla raid's victims section, the section that should be written. Kavas (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) All people that died in Mavi Marmara are as notifiable as Solomos Solomou.Kavas (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of participants of the Gaza flotilla Non notable, one event doesn't justify having an article. See WP:ONEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:51, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Richman[edit]

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

Has only fought for Brutaal, which is a Minnesota-only promotion. Brutaal isn't deemed notable and other fighters who have only fought for them are usually deleted Paralympiakos (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that this information was deliberately left out of the article -Drdisque (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights in a major promotion or against notable opponents. No significant coverage on Google. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter does not meet MMA notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has fought only in low-level events. He's not close to meeting WP:MMANOT, at least not at this time. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor (Project Manager)[edit]

Peter_Taylor_(Project_Manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Support Deletion - Article should be deleted, pure promotion. Read the first paragraph and you will see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs) 2010/06/14 18:49:37

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising. Two references given, only one of which (the Irish Times) is actually about the subject. Sixteen, count 'em, sixteen external links provided, all promotional in nature. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Majestic Mix: Square Dance[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass our album guidelines, which isn't surprising as this seems to be the audio equivalent of fanfiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Silva[edit]

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

Poor stub of an article. Only real notability seems to be a loss in the WEC. Icon Sport appearances aren't all that notable and they're the best he's got after the WEC appearance. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few (one) fight in a major promotion and a notable opponent (a loss). Google hits provide a little coverage (stats, some articles about a couple fights, his tryouts for The Ultimate Fighter 12), not enough to be considered notable, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter does not meet MMA notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything that shows he meets notability criteria, especially WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Confessions[edit]

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

Fails Notability for books. Contested prod. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I am completing this AfD for the IP ~~and am currently neutral. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)~~ !Voted keep below. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability is not an issue (though it needs to be established within the article), but I am concerned that the current plot section constitutes a copyright problem in its level of detail. At the time I am writing this, it is 3,049 words - using an academic estimate of 400 words per page, it would fill almost 8 pages in a standard scholarly book. I believe this crosses the line of acceptable summary, creating a derivative work. See Twin Peaks v. Publications International. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries notes that "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." WP:PLOT notes that while "a concise plot summary is usually appropriate", the purpose of an article on a piece of fiction is not to retell its plot, but to discuss reception and significance. I believe the summary needs to be cut to a small percentage of its length and balanced with additional material that provides critical commentary; otherwise, there is little transformative about the content, and we are merely saving readers the trouble of buying the book. That we are non-profit is no defense; as WP:NFC points out, we are not only concerned with our own use, but that of our reusers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this concern has broader implications, I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this page has already been deleted once before because of copyright issues. The article creator has also previously received a one day block for copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Ivankinsman. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, as you can see, I have made a considerable number of contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to know what having 'a one day block for copyright violiation' has to do with this article? It seems to me that this is Wikipedia editing at its worst ... you are using this to imply that anything I write now will be a copyright violation. Am I the only contributor who has crossed over the line in terms of copyright? I have stated very openly that this article is based on my own reading of the novel.

Also, why does Moonriddengirl say that 'the current plot section constitutes a copyright problem in its level of detail'? What copyright problem exists here if it is written in my own words and not 'copy and pasted' from other sources? As I have stated the book is 480 pages long i.e. it is longer than a Thomas Hardy or a Charles Dickens novel and so needs a plot summary of this length.Ivankinsman (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may explain some of the copyright issues that have arisen before. Copyright consists in more than just the simple language used; it is also bound in the creative ideas. You can, for instance, translate a work from Japanese into English, changing every word used in the original, and still infringe on it; what you create is a "derivative work". Did you read [Twin Peaks v. Publications International, linked above? When you cross the line from a summary used for critical commentary, you move into the land of abridgment, and only the copyright holder has the right to license abridgments. Your summary does not need to be that length. Looking at a couple of featured articles about books that are even longer, The Well of Loneliness is about a book that is 512 pages long; its plot summary is 598 words. The Time Traveler's Wife is 546 pages long; its plot summary is 755 words. While creating a plot summary that fits within the allowances of the U.S. copyright law that governs us may lose some finer detail, unfortunately it's necessary when the work is not public domain. I've also explained above that the work needs to be transformative. Currently, there is little in this article other than a recounting of the plot. Plots must be discussed as part of an overall critical commentary/analysis of a book. "Transformation" is one of the necessary tests of the fair use doctrine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the Wikipedia NBOOK guidelines:

. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
. The book has won a major literary award.
. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[6]

- William Boyd is one of the UK's leading modern novelists. He has won several literary awards. The books covers significant events in the twentieth century (I have added in a section on the Hollywood Blacklist and the Hollywood Ten which are mentioned as historical references in the novel). All of the author's books are considered notable by anyone who is familiar with contemporary fiction.

- I have also reduced the novel's plot summary to a more reasonable length. Ivankinsman (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completed the nomination which was started by an IP, and now after taking the time to review the article and references, I feel that there are likely sufficient sources to establish notability: It was a NYTimes bestseller, has a lengthy review in New York magazine, and another review in the LATimes. That said, however, as Moonriddengirl said above, the plot section is still far too long at a current length of 1,775 words.

First, stylistic problems: compare this to War and Peace which has 2,250 words summarizing the plot for 1,225 pages. The rough standard of 2 words or less per page of the book holds pretty much steady for all novel articles across the site.
Second, copyright problems: as I noted at WT:C#How much plot summary is too much?, there are at least two court cases which have found a derivative work (such as a summary or abridgement) to be substantial enough to constitute a copyright infringement with a mere 1% of the content of the full work. The current summary is still very close to this length. As Wikipedia's non-free content policy is explicitly more restrictive than the limitations of fair use, I believe the article cannot remain as it is. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Prize winning title. As usual, plot needs a trim and the article should be developed along the guidelines set up by WP:NOVSTY Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 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. NW (Talk) 10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Cooper[edit]

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

Non-notable author CosmicJake (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 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, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has been CEO of three pharmacutical companies and has published three novels. Coverage includes:

http://people.forbes.com/profile/glenn-l-cooper/43396
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/06/09/daily35.html Racepacket (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person may have been the CEO of 3 pharmacuticals, but coverage in RS in nominal at best. The article is also an attempt to cover him as an author, wherein he clearly fails wp:author.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:51, 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) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh and Lakshan[edit]

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

No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is personal promotion.Wipeouting (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I doubt it is personal promotion. There's no real evidence for that. There is this article about them. If more can be uncovered, then this would be a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 2 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, 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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 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 WP:NOTDIR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Software Companies in Delhi[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a directory, see my comments at a similar afd. Rehevkor ✉ 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I think we can improve the article, like removing non-notable software companies names, only keeping notable companies name.KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. A huge list of red links with little source to establish notability of any of them.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just remove the many redlinks. A list of anything with WP articles is intrinsically not indiscriminate or a violation of DIRECTORY.the cure for lists with much inappropriate material is to remove the inappropriate material, not remove the list. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you tried cleaning it up yourself? I did for List of Software Companies in India, and here it's the same, it's just too big to be cleanable at this point. Easier to delete and start from scratch.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. To hard to clean up. Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlink farm. If all the redlinks were removed there would be maybe a dozen or so entries left, and of those a number are only bluelinked because they're common words (i.e. Biotech), not because the companies are notable. And the few that remain several aren't even headquartered in Delhi according to their articles. What's left is maybe 3 or 4 items. Unsalvagable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 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. Can always renominate later if the article is not, in fact, fixed. Shimeru 09:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Software Companies in India[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable --Sodabottle (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I think we can improve the article, like removing non-notable software companies names, only keeping notable companies name.KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Ditto for the rest. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what Category:Software companies of India is for. utcursch | talk 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I guess lists are the new BLPs. When I previously suggested pages similar to List of software companies in Mumbai, I meant it to be a point against deleting it. There are other similar pages like List of corporations in Gdańsk, List of corporations in Poznań, List of corporations in Pittsburgh, List of corporations with a major presence in Birmingham, Alabama, List of corporations based in Winnipeg, List of corporations based in New York City, List of companies of Ireland, List of companies of the People's Republic of China, List of companies based in Bradford, List of companies based in Leeds, List of companies based in Leeds, Newcastle University spin-out companies, List of companies based in Newcastle upon Tyne, List of historical British telcos, List of companies of Canada, Foreign ownership of companies of Canada, List of Canadian insurance companies, List of Canadian mobile phone companies, List of defunct airlines of Canada, List of airlines of Canada, List of Canadian telephone companies, List of technology companies in Richmond, British Columbia, List of defunct Canadian railways, List of technology companies in Ottawa, List of technology companies in Montreal, List of Canadian electric utilities, List of airlines of the United States, List of Alabama companies, List of Alaska companies, List of Arizona companies, List of Arkansas companies... I could go on, but this is enough for now. Lists are essentially different from categories. Agreed, the list in question reads more like a category than a list article, but that is nothing that cannot be fixed. The topic in itself is adequately notable--^Nilotpal42 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not against the principle of the article, but looking at a random selection of the lists you mention, they are all manageable. The article under AfD is an uncleanable mess. I tried to cleanup the red links only to find there was no alphabetical ordering, making it really hard to find the blue links out of the red ones, and by doing so I discovered duplicate entries (that's what happens when it's not alphabetized). As many of the notable companies are not Indian in the first place, there would need to be sources to establish their presence in the particular cities where they are listed. So we have at hand an unmanageable, unverifiable article. Deletion is the most reasonable option, with no prejudice on recreation of a manageable, properly sourced article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This of course is intended to be limited to the ntabler ones. Therefore it is intrinsically not a violation of DIRECTORY, which would include them all. The redlinks shou.ld be removed after a time is given to seeing which of them may be notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but cleanup as in delete all the red links and external links per WP:EL, WP:NOTDIR. In fact, I shall do that right now. ETA: OK, I might be more inclined to delete as there needs to be sourcing for the presence of some of these companies in India.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - attempted cleanup is not worth it, it's easier to start from scratch. Too many red links, no ordering, no sources. I tried.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - going over the blue links left, there is still a whole lot of lack of sourcing for notability and verifiability. Thus I am still leaning towards delete.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Now the list consists of only companies with WP articles then I think it should be kept. Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(Has already !voted above.) Allow me some time I will remove all non notable companies. If you guys give me time then let me know on my talk page. I will clear all non notable companies. KuwarOnline ^Talk 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the AfD will probably be open for another few days yet so you have some time. Codf1977 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , per DGG and Nilotpal42. Subject is clearly notable and the problem of the terrible proliferation of red links can be solved by editing, therefore deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delete. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list. Neither relevant sources are given.--Kkm010 ^as© 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not possible for every company to meet the standards and get listed on Wikipedia. That does not mean the company does not operate. List of India IT companies simply means that the person looking for IT company in particular city either for service or stats can get it easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.107.130 (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete; opinions are split on whether this article should be kept separate or merged. Discussion of the topic can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States[edit]

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

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's unfortunate that the nominator decided to send this to AFD without allowing me to respond to my perfectly reasonable question on the talk page. As I explained to this editor, this does not merit deletion under WP:NOTDIR, specifically clause 4, which states:

"Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article."

This is not an attempt to list every independent wrestling promotion in the United States but is intended to be a well-referenced listing of notable independent promotions Wikipedia "should" have (not unlike WP:MISSING). In the original version of this article, every entry had two or more cited references. While the majority were from ProWrestling.com, Solie.org and Wrestling-Titles.com, all frequently used and accepted sources on WP wrestling articles [14] [15] [16], it also contained several books and news articles. While its true additional entries have been added without sources, the current article contains over 200 cited references. I don't understand why he feels the article is "poorly sourced" or which of the references he has an issue with.

I also find it in somewhat bad faith that this editor has accused me of having a conflict of interest or that I am trying to "advertise". Its also misleading to suggest I am the original author. I told the editor that I would have been happy to help improve the article if he pointed out his concerns. There are more than enough existing promotions on WP to justify a list although I could have provided additional references had I been given the opportunity to do so (as I had on List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand). Deletion seems a tad extreme in this case given other alternatives available, for example, removing the uncited or "non-notable" entries. Despite my polite request, the editor has not named even one of the "number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N".

I attempted to discuss these issues in a civil manner but, from what I gathered on the talk page (and his above comments), he isn't interested in my opinion. In his reply, I was told that I "failed to address the concerns expressed in the prod" despite the fact that I was awaiting his response to find out what these concerns specifically were. On the articles in which I did "address these concerns", he nominated them for deletion regardless. While I disagree with many of his assertions, particularly that an article isn't notable if it doesn't already have a WP article, I have made a sincere attempt to improve this and similar articles. I've never questioned his motives only his reasoning.

In short, there are a number of independent wrestling promotions in the US. While I'll be the first to agree that not "every" promotion is notable, there are a limited number of promotions that are regardless if there isn't an article for them yet. A significant amount already exist on Wikipedia so why is putting them on a list suddenly a problem? If there are specific "non-notable" entries, then they can be removed. Deleting the list in its entirety simply doesn't make sense according to the reasons given by the nominator. 71.184.40.212 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads to me like you definitely have a vested interest in this. Suggest you back off and see what everyone else thinks. !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that may I ask? Because I disagree with you? I've simply given my opinion and I do have a right to express it. I've done nothing to warrant your hostile tone. Instead of making accusations perhaps you could respond to any of the points I raised above? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to prove my statement incorrect. You're adding cruft to Wikipedia and that's not encyclopaedic. You have the right to express an opinion, but you have no right to go completely against WP:NOTDIR, WP:N and WP:COI. That is what you are trying to do and I have the right to try and stop you from adding what amounts to junk on this site. You have to prove that it's not junk - and with facts. Not your opinion. And there is already a page listing all the promotions with WP articles so this is double handling like I said. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you suggesting exactly? That I'm somehow associated with every independent promotion on this list, defunct or otherwise? And I assume this applies to my arguments for the Australia, Mexico and New Zealand list as well? I'm sorry but I'm the only one who has been arguing with facts. Unfortunately, you have responded by intimidation, dishonesty and rudeness. You continue to make unwarrented and wild accusations towards me. I haven't added ANY promotions (i.e. "junk") to the list. I did add additional sources to the other pages you've nominated and which you've yet to acknowledge.

I've never once objected to the removal of non-notable promotions from this list. I'm not arguing that all the promotions on the list must be kept. But are all the un-linked promotions on here "not notable"? You've refused to even discuss the matter on the talk page and in this discussion. If you look through the list carefully, there are more then enough existing articles already. This follows WP:LIST to the letter and does not warrant the deletion of the list itself. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument for deletion is pretty shabby. Promotions that do not have WP articles obviously need to get WP articles, provided sourcing is available. I wasn't aware that so many regional independent wrestling leagues exists. This article could use some attention and help. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not available, Regent. That's why they aren't notable. It is not possible to improve this article. I've already done my research, and this makes my argument far from shabby. You can't just add promotions to Wikipedia for the heck of it. They have to be notable and that notability has to be verifiable through third party independent reliable sources. Why double handle what's already available? !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then a list containing promotions referenced with "third party independent reliable sources" would be acceptable correct? There are 200+ cited references right now. Which of these do disagree with? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them because they only establish existence - not notability. The only notable ones are the ones who have WP articles. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very "first" cited reference, for Power & Glory Wrestling in Connecticut, is to an article on the promotion by noted wrestling author Brian Solomon. A quick search on Wikipedia shows his work is cited in 440+ wrestling articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, a project you yourself are involved with, lists Solomon as a reliable source.

Essentially your argument boils down to this:

Wrestling promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable (which violates WP:RED among other policies; many independent promotions that do exist are included in the article).
Even if they were, the list is "poorly sourced" and is not covered by "third party independent reliable sources" (despite the 200 cited references already on the page you've yet to name one unreliable source as an example).
A list such as this is "unencyclopedic" (despite articles covering independent wrestlers and the independent circuit itself).
This list constitutes advertising and a directory (despite the fact that the clauses you state in said policies do not apply in any way - you've yet to specify how they do).

You state you've "done your homework" and that "all of them" are not notable. It took me a considerable time to find sources for List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand. Because of this, I believe I've made a strong case that the majority of the un-linked promotions are notable. Perhaps now you might be willing to do the same? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. About an hour after my last post, I've done a cursory search on Google News. At random I picked the 20-year old "Power League Wrestling" in Rhode Island (currently the only one in the state). Among my results? An article on the promotion by the Providence Journal ("Bruisers go to the mat for a worthy cause"). Albeit a pay article, as many of them were, there were a number of articles covering their activities as a charity organization. Beginner's luck perhaps? Alright, let's see what our second random search picks up for the Allied Independent Wrestling Federation in North Carolina. Another news article by the Winston-Salem Journal ("IT'S ALL-OUT WAR ; BLOOD, GUTS AND THEATER ATTRACT FANS TO THE WONDERS OF HARD-CORE WRESTLING"). The New York Wrestling Connection, a promotion owned by Mikey Whipwreck, has numerous hits. And among these is an article by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ("WHIPWRECK LEARNED HARD LESSONS -- NOW HE'S A TEACHER"). According to SLAM! Sports, Mike Mondo started his career there ("Mike Mondo still has the spirit") as well as Matt Striker (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Matt Striker) and Christopher Daniels (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Christopher Daniels) having notable stints in the promotion. The promotion has been listed on your own wrestling wikiproject's "requested articles" list for nearly a year.

The news articles I've produced are not press releases or advertisements. They are articles, granted from local (but perfectly notable) newspapers, that fulfill "Significant coverage" as required by WP:N and WP:CORP. If you've "done your homework", as you say, then you've unfortunately missed one of two of these articles in your search. Furthermore, this demonstrates that at least "some" of the articles in question "are" notable. While you may show some that are not, and again I would not object to removing a legitimate non-notable entry, your whole argument hinges on the fact that "all" of the un-linked articles are not notable, not only because they don't already have an article on Wikipedia, but that there are no reliable sources that exist even if they did. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to create articles on these promotions. If they are notable there should be an article on them. But you won't because you prefer this unencyclopaedic source. I only claimed the research had been done on the Australian promotions so don't put words into my mouth. I never said or meant that in relation to the US. Local newspaper significance depends entirely on it's circulation, publication frequency and general content. Now I can't comment on that in the US but in Australia there are local papers that are primarily advertising vehicles. You're taking this way too personally to be reliable so I suggest we wait for other opinions to see if there is a consensus either way - not that it ultimately makes a difference because AfD's aren't votes. !! Justa Punk !! 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Would the creation of articles be a general requirement in an AFD discussion? What we're talking about is this specific list, and whether or not it's notable, not the individual entries. However, as you bring up the subject, the original author apparently created Mason-Dixon Wrestling around the time of this list. Paulie Gilmore and Cueball Carmichael, both listed as promoters, have also been created since then. A registered user created MXW Pro Wrestling four months ago. While I'm not claiming this list is "responsible" for that per se, formerly un-linked entries on this list have been fulfilled (see WP:RED). I've also demonstrated evidence of notability for other un-linked promotions on this list. I assume now that you've abandoned your original argument?

As for "putting words in your mouth", your reasons for proding the article were that it "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes a number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N". Now I would assume at this point it is more of a concern you brought up rather than a presumption of an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion. Per the guidelines for objections, I left a reasonable question in both the edit summary and the talk page with the intention of finding out what your specific concerns were. In fact, I even offered in good faith to help improve the article until you were satisfied (or not) that these concerns were (or could be) addressed. You instead dismissed my comments without allowing me to respond and decided to take it to AFD. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you had actually checked the promotions prior to this and other nominations. Once you've done so, it is you who has the responsibility to actually check for sources before nominating an article for deletion. If you haven't done even that then it is yourself, not I, whose "reliability" is in question. From what I've gathered in your above statement, am I to understand that you've only checked the Australian list? 72.74.204.219 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said I'm not sure I follow you. You don't. I am making myself crystal clear on this matter, and bluntly you aren't paying attention to what I say. Bottom line - if the promotion is notable, create and article for it. End of problem. This list is not notable and everything else I said in the nomination applies - especially the double handling issue. That is my last statement to you. Let's hear other thoughts. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I didn't follow you, I was referring to your "challenge". I'm sorry but I've replied to each and every claim you've made in this discussion. You have not answered any of mine. If you disagree with my arguments, then why not respond to them? It's not that I don't understand you. I simply don't agree with your opinion that because a list contains entries, those currently without an article on Wikipedia article, then all the promotions must be "non-notable" and the entire list is "unencyclopedic" and "advertising". I've pointed out that there are a significant amount of promotions on this list that do have articles (75 by my count) and have provided reliable sources that prove notability for un-linked articles you claim are "not notable". My issue is with the notability of this list not specific entries therein. This list, if it indeed contains non-notable promotions, should be cleaned up and properly sourced. It's a notable topic and I don't feel it warrants deletion.

I apologise if you've become upset in the course of our conversation, however, I think I've been calm and perfectly civil to you. Though in my opinion, if I may be honest, is that your rush to take this (and three other articles) to AFD may have been premature. You say you've only checked the sources for the Australian list but none of the others including this article. You point to policies without specifying how they qualify. The clauses you do eventually state (e.g. #4 of WP:NOTDIR) are incorrect. I have no personal feelings towards yourself or this article. I objected to your proding the article because of your reasoning, as I would have done so for any other article, not because I have some sort of ulterior motive. I wonder if you would have spoken differently if you'd been discussing this with one of your colleagues from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List already exists. What isn't there fails WP:IINFO because the list is clearly intended to provide all feds as there is no limitation intent within the lead paragraph. Mal Case (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry but you're wrong. The list he refers to is for general wrestling promotions that only exist on Wikipedia. The scope of this list is "notable" independent promotions, a legitimate subtopic of professional wrestling in the United States, and includes 75 existing independent promotions on Wikipedia that are on this list. The policy you cite, WP:IINFO, is intended for lists that are of very limited interest or are "too specific" (e.g. list of wrestling promotions whose heavyweight champions are named Bob). Per WP:List, it is my opinion that this qualifies as a stand-alone list. The only limitation I see, according to WP:LIST and WP:RED, is that entries must require reliable sources per WP:RS. The original list contained 190+ cited references, and has since increased to over 200. Whether of not these additional promotions are notable, as proven "non-notable" promotions can be removed, this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself. But even if that were not the case, according to WP:RED, would you agree that I would be within my rights to add a "notable" promotion to List of professional wrestling promotions if I could support it though WP:RS? If you check the history of the article this may not be the case. For the record, I have never edited this list despite the similarity of the IP address.

As I earlier explained, this is not a listing of "every" independent promotion in the US. There is a decidedly "limited" amount of promotions from a "limited" number of US states (32 of 50 states to be precise). There have been literally thousands of independent promotions that have been active in the United States since the 1990s. The original listed 190+ promotions, both defect and active, in the past 20 years. The fact that every entry was supported by two or more cited references (per WP:RS) shows that each promotion was notable. The fact that many of the promotions did not have articles at the time of its creation is irrelevant (per WP:RED). However, I have demonstrated that several of the non-existing promotions were notable via "significant coverage" by major newspapers (per WP:N and WP:CORP). The nominator has even admitted that he did not check if they were prior to nominating the article (as per AFD: Before nominating an article for deletion). Of course, we should remember that this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself not its content. It is a perfectly acceptable reason to create a more specific list (per WP:LIST) and, in point of fact, has a clearly defined scope (i.e. "notable" independent promotions in the United States which can be proven though WP:N and WP:CORP). Have I misinterpreted any of the policies I've pointed to? I think this argument on the List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico, another article this editor has nominated for similar reasons, applies perfectly. Do you disagree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to WP:LIST, it's recommended to use {{Stand-alone list}} instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.60.112 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Close and Relist The same thing has happened here as what has happened on the Mexico list AfD. Both the nominator and the objector have destroyed this AfD with their antics in violation of WP:SNOW. AinslieL (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand why my arguments for keeping this article are being described as "antics". I think I've argued my point in good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. May I ask how have I been disruptive or have otherwise engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly seem to have a fixation with this. See what I said on the Afd about promotions in Mexico. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "fixation"? That doesn't really sound like an assumtion of good faith. Your statement also presumes that this is this first AFD I've participated in and that I've taken an unexplained and "sudden" interest in this specific article. I simply feel the nominator is misapplying Wikipedia policy (in good faith of course). If you'll read though this discussion, he has cited general policy yes. He has even refered to Section 4 of WP:NOTDIR (i.e. being used as a business directory and/or as a resource to conduct business). But he has not once actually specified how it applies to this article. Nor has he responded to "any" of my arguments (e.g. what information is on this list that is not on, for example, List of NWA territories of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion?). His only replies to me have been to claim I have a conflict of interest and the assertion that "promotions aren't notable if they don't already have an article". Now if I point out his argument is irrelevent to the discussion at hand (see arguments to the person) or ignores a basic policy (see WP:RED), who is acting appropriately in this discussion? 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep: generally a very well sourced article, obviously passes WP:N.194.80.52.158 (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and merge Rename to Professional wrestling in the United States, prosify, and merge with the existing History of professional wrestling in the United States -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I undertand you correctly, ALL the notable promotions on the list may be merged to History of professional wrestling in the United States and/or List of professional wrestling promotions#United States of America? Regardless if they do not have an article yet? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the actually noteworthy ones (there are several in the list which do not have enough reliable sources (reliable being the key), to make them worth mentioning. I'm proposing making a proper Professional wrestling in the United States article, similar to the other similar ones for Mexico, Japan, etc, under the appropriate name, that blends in elements from the list and the history. The list does have sources, so once the entries that are only sourced to reliable or insigificant coverage are weeded out, I see no reason why the rest can't be rewritten into prose as part of a article covering the entire topic. As Starblind also notes, those that are not noteworthy (versus purely notable) should not be included and many of those in this list are not noteworthy. Alternately, the list, when culled down, chould be merged to List of professional wrestling promotions#United States of America, though as they are "independent" I'm not entirely sure they would fit with the list' current topic. Also, while we all understand you are passionate about this topic, you really are not aiding the discussion by making lengthy replies to anyone who does not simply say keep. You've already made your views clear, so repeating them over and over is really not necessary. You may wish to review WP:AFDEQ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to "anyone who doesn't vote keep". If I reply to someone with a valid question, say, why does this particular list not meet WP:LIST isn't resonable for this point to be acknowledged? You say the majority of the entries fail WP:N or do not contain reliable sources. Are you saying that none of them meet WP:RS? I think I've already proved they have. As for my "lengthy" replies, I don't think my particular writing style should the the focus of discussion. 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Redirect to this list. Many of these only lasted a few years and some for a year or less, which means they really couldn't possibly have been notable in anything resembling an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I respectfully disagree sir. In the interests of keeping my replies brief, I point to here and here. Can you explain by a listing of notable independent promotions does not qualify as a Stand-alone list? The many defunct promotions are, I believe, "historically significant" organizations. South Atlantic Pro Wrestling, for example, was founded by George Scott and later run by Paul Jones and Frank Dusek. The Global Wrestling Association was owned by Al Snow. Additionally, almost every entry on this list is cited with 200+ references. Does that not support that most, if not all, referenced promotions are notable? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. While George Scott is a notable person for other reasons, things do not inherit notability by association (for details, see WP:NOTINHERITED). South Atlantic Pro Wrestling is such a minor blip in George Scott's career that it's only given one sentence in his article. As far as sourcing goes, to continue to use South Atlantic Pro Wrestling as our example, the source given (http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com) doesn't appear to be reliable by encyclopedic standards, but even if we accept it as truth it only gives two tiny slivers of information, specifically that George and two other people started it in "early 1990" but by July 1990 it had already changed names and ownership, meaning that it lasted some 6 months at best. It also says that the matches were held at places like high schools and drew miniscule crowds, in one case 42 people! Now, I've been to indy wrestling shows and they're a lot of fun, but come on, 42 people is a fraction of what I had last time I had a yard sale. I'm sure it was fun and some folks have fond memories and all, but some things are simply too obscure to ever reasonably be covered in an encyclopedia, and that's one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying because George Scott founded the promotion, the promotion is notable. My point is that the promotion is notable because it is supported by reliable sources per WP:RS. ProWrestlingHistory.com is used on over 1600 wrestling articles. Of course, even if the promotion was not notable then it could still be removed from the list. I could make a case for entries that unquestionably have reliable sources. Again, for an example, see my earlier response here and here. But this is not about the notability of individual entries. It is about the list as a whole. If your point is about the sourcing of this article then it should have been discussed on the talk page.

Is independent wrestling a notable topic? Would a list of notable promotions be appropriate for the main article? If so, then what happens if the list becomes too large? It is generally appropriate to split the article. I feel this article has enough notable independent promotions to justify such a list. Now according to WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists if a list has existing entries or can demonstrate notability then such a list is perfectly acceptable. Pointing out one or two entries is a content issue and has no bearing on whether the subject is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. I could see if there wasn't any evidence of notable promotions but there are 75 existing entries on the list alone. And WP:IDONTKNOWIT is hardly a defense if a significant number of promotions have evidence of notability. Why not check out the first cited referenced on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because ProWrestlingHistory is in articles doesn't make it reliable. It needs to have a proven fact checking system to be reliable. Nikki♥311 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Nikki, Starblind and Anma - you are seeing here why the IP is being disruptive. You make a point and he argues it without fail no matter what. I agree with the proposals made. !! Justa Punk !! 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point of my reply. The editor was arguing the notability of a specific entry because the source may fail WP:RS. I've proven that there are a number of un-linked article that do meet WP:RS. But this is not about whether or not a one reference to one particular entry meets WP:RS. This is about the notability of "the list itself" and if it meets WP:LIST not individual entries. Despite Justa Punk's comment, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm making a valid point. Nikki311, for instance, has only replied that ProWrestlingHistory.com may not be a reliable source. Fine. What about the other 199 references? What about, say, the very first cited reference on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the majority of them have the same issue...such as Solie's, Wrestling Titles, etc. After looking through the references, the only good ones are the book by Royal Duncan & Gary Will and the PWI Almanac. Everything else either isn't reliable or primary. As for the first reference (1wrestling.com), my computer warned me that it was an attack site, so my guess is it probably won't pass WP:RS either. Nikki♥311 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is notable, the format is fine - editing of entries is the only issue I see, but that's an article issue, not a delete issue. MPJ -DK 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can not stand alone. Needs to be put into History of professional wrestling in the United States with sources that show that the promotion is historically significant. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly encyclopedic and well sourced. —fetch ·comms 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established through plethora of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any issues, notable subject and generally cited. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just like the Mexico one - seems notable/verifiable enough to me. And for the love of Jimbo, stop acting like children! Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:21, 24 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. No consensus to delete, opinion split on whether to keep or merge. Discussion can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico[edit]

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

Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, overriding concern that this type of content is not encyclopedic and mass advertising. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per my response here, I specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod. I referenced each and every supposedly "non-notable" promotion with multiple cited references from books and news articles. His assertion that this is an attempt to list every lucha libre promotion in Mexico is highly misleading as are claims of advisertising considering this article is an exact mirror of similar listings of wrestling promotions (e.g. List of National Wrestling Alliance territories). The nominator has yet to specify how this article falls under WP:ADVERT. Several of these promotons are already listed on Template:Professional wrestling in Mexico. Yet there can't be a list of wrestling promotions in Mexico? 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have a vested interest in this. You'd better review WP:COI. My claim is not misleading. It's fact. Just look at the list. It tries to list everything. This fails WP:ADVERT on the grounds that the listing serves no purpose other than advertising the promotions that are around and were around. !! Justa Punk !! 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could instead stick to the facts and discuss this like two mature adults? Let's look at the list. What exactly is on here that constiutes advertising? The only information on here is the name of the promotion, the founder/promoter (if notable), the general location, years its been active and the official website. That's it. Nothing that that wouldn't be included an actual article. In fact that could be a description of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. There is no contact information, upcoming events or anything remotely close to what is described in WP:ADVERT. Maybe you could also explain what would be the point of advertising "promotions that are no longer around"?

As for your other issue, that this is attempt to list "every" lucha libre promotion in existance, I don't think you realize just how many lucha libre promotions are in Mexico right now. Or how many there have been in the past 80 years. There are, at present, 17 entries with almost half that of articles already on Wikipedia. Even if these were removed, there's more then enough promotions to justify a list. However, I think the recently added references support that the "vast majority" are notable. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have only proven existence. If the promotions were notable, where are the individual articles on them? Clearly you're a wrestling fan who wants it all on Wikipedia. This site doesn't work that way, and trying to put junk on here - well what amounts to junk under WP rules - is in effect advertising the promotion. A direct violation of WP:ADVERT. The list is already available on the page List of professional wrestling promotions. The list has to be NOTABLE - and it's not and that's why it's here for deletion discussion. !! Justa Punk !! 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again you continue to repeat the idea that because a promotion does not exist on Wikipedia, it is not notable. You still refuse to acknowedge the sources provided or any of the points I've raised above. Does, for example, Rey Misterio, Jr.'s book Rey Mysterio: Behind the Mask "only prove existence" for Promo Azteca? Several of the un-linked promotions run monthy PPVs on Mexican television. Others are owned by notable promoters or luchadores. There are multiple independent third party reliable sources. Instead of continuing your personal attacks towards me you can demonstrate why these fail WP:N? Or how this fails WP:LIST? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to prove your case. I have already proven my point. Yes, it only proves it's existence, not it's notability. Just because Rey Mysterio worked for them doesn't automatically make the promotion notable. Any church hall based promotion with a ring with any money could hire whoever they wanted. It doesn't prove notability at all. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound rude, however, you haven't actually "made a case" so much as you've repeatedly asserted an opinion (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Also you may want to re-read the chapter I linked to. It's almost five pages long and quite detailed. Roughly half of Asistencia Asesoría y Administración's roster left with Konnan to form the promotion and had a working relationship with World Championship Wrestling well into the late-1990s. It also had a contract with TV Azteca. I'd hardly call it a "church hall based promotion". The source cited clearly meets WP:RS (as do the other 6 cited references). 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and it fails WP:IINFO, as do many of these lists. Claritas § 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you be a bit more specific as to how it fails WP:IINFO? In my opinion, this is a listing of "notable" lucha libre promotions, not every promotion, and is supported by multiple books and news articles. Even if every un-linked promotion on here wasn't, there are still 7 WP articles here that justify a list under WP:LIST. And also, regarding WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTDIR, what information is here that isn't on, say, List of National Wrestling Alliance territories or List of airlines of the United States? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the seven promotions mentioned are already listed on List of professional wrestling promotions. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but, and again per WP:LIST, it is perfectly reasonable to create a more specific list. Lucha libre organizations are distinct from American professional wrestling as are puroresu organizations in Japan. That such a list might be created is not all that unreasonable as you make it sound. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some other opinions here please? !! Justa Punk !! 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of contacting one of your colleagues from WP:PW. If he feels as you do then I'll have no further objections. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's as valid as a list of NWA Territories. There is actually a very LIMITED number of promotions on there, the notable ones from what I can see. And as for the snide "why don't they have articles" comment, that's first of all NOT a criteria and more a sad state of affairs pertaining to non-WWE wrestling on Wikipedia, I should know for the longest time I've been the most active lucha libre editor here. Why is it a conflict of interest for some guy to list the more notable Lucha promotions? He's making a list that he finds helpful and I agree it's a good idea. The subject of the list is valid, if one item or other is or is not notable in itself is a matter of content - but the list is valid, you cannot state that the world's oldest promotion (CMLL) isn't notable. You don't delete a list beacausee you believe some of the entries are not notable, you delete a list if it's not a topic worthy of a list, which this is. MPJ -DK 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and on the "notable" subject, this list is more valid that a list of US promotions considering that in the US pro wrestling is the running joke of "serious press", in Mexico lucha gets coverage in mainstream newsoutlets not just wrestling sites like 99% of the US coverage. So the topic of wrestling in Mexico is notable, more so than "wrestling in the United States". Providing a list to go with a notable topic is very common. I have yet to see where the conflict of interest comes from unless you've got proof he's working for one of the promotions that does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. So Punk unless you can actually explain what the conflict is the argument is not valid. MPJ -DK 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ, the reason for the COI view is in the manner that the IP is pushing this. If you look through his or her arguments, it smacks of a determination to have this listing including for no real reason other than for the heck of it. The constant argument is that Wikipedia "needs" this. Why? I find such a point lacking in NPOV, and where there's a lack of a NPOV, COI thoughts inevitably follow. Perhaps, on thinking of it now - perhaps I should be querying the IP on NPOV rather than COI, but I'd be lying if I said I still have COI suspicions on this.

Also, if there is major coverage in Mexico of the promotions that presently don't have articles, they should be created. I should point out that my point here is not core to the AfD. The core is WP:NOTDIR (and the double handling) and I pick up the point made on one of these four AfD's (I think it was the US one) that WP:IINFO applies as well. The fed notability issue is related but not core. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well if NOTDIR and INFO are your main point we're good, it's not an indiscriminat directory of the 75 or so feds active in Mexico right now, but a reduced list of those who would actually be worth mentioning and it does not fit any of the other things on the list of NOTDIR either. And I'm glad to see you volunteer to help create articles, very helpful of you, just not relevant to the AFD. MPJ -DK 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I'd be creating any articles. I can't. I'm in Australia and I have no clue as to where to even start looking for sources. A reduced list already exists on List of professional wrestling promotions so it would be double handling (which I also mentioned in the nomination). I disagree with you because this list has no purpose other than simply being a list. That - if I remember my dictionary correctly - is a definition of "indiscriminant". At least the existing page has a purpose, and that's to enhance Wikipedia itself by listing the promotions that have WP articles. This list's only conceivable purpose is to promote the promotions - and that's advertising/spam - which is definitely part of #4 of WP:NOTDIR (IIRC). !! Justa Punk !! 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And i live in Denmark yet i do create articles, not a point. By your logic every article that was created today was only notable from today on forward, that's just illogical. MPJ -DK 05:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said there was illogical in itself! How on earth do you draw that conclusion from what I said?? *confused* !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what MPJ-DK means is that he lives in Denmark but regularly works on lucha libre articles despite living in another continent. Also your claim that articles that do not exist on WP yet are, by definition, not-notable. It follows then that an article on, say actor Steven Wickham, is not notable because his article doesn't exist. But if its created tomorrow...well it's quite a paradox wouldn't you agree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. MPJ -DK 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I think I've been perfectly clear and concise in my objections. I don't understand why you believe I'm "pushing" the issue "for the heck of it" simply because I object to your reasoning. Because we have opposing views, this constitutes NPOV on my part? While you may suspect my motives, justified or not, accusing me of them outright without proof is presumptuous and unethical. Nor, as you claim, have I said Wikipedia "needs" this list. I put forth a logical argument for why I feel this and the other lists are notable per Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RED, WP:LIST). Or more specifically that it does not qualify for the reasons you specified (i.e. WP:NOTDIR, WP:ADVERT). Your defence thus far has been to discredit me by "attacking the person" and asserting what seems to be your personal point of view (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Can you refer to a Wikipedia guideline that specifically supports this? A listing of notable lucha libre promotions, or for that matter US independent promotions, supported by reliable sources is not an indiscriminate listing (a list of "wrestling promotions whose wrestlers have red hair" is a more appropriate example). In your reply to MPJ-DK's comments you say notability is not "a core issue". Was not your exact phrase in proding this article "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes many promotions that fail WP:N"? 71.184.40.33 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm leaning towards the nom, but the IP brings up a fair point re mainstream coverage in Mexico. However one needs to provide a limitation in the lead paragraph to avoid WP:IINFO as Mexico has a very blurred line between proper feds and backyard (it's not as distinct as it is in other countries like the US). Placing a limitation on would validate MPJ's currently invalid comparison with NWA territories. As the IP created the article he should be the one to fix that. There is also the issue of a list already existing. A quick comment to the IP; Punk said it was not a core issue. He didn't say it wasn't an issue at all. Aren't you nit picking his argument? Mal Case (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "invalid" to compare the lists? if anything the NWA List has a lot more non-notable entries on it, it indiscriminately lists ALL NWA territories, former and present (indiscriminantly). MPJ -DK 05:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. He listed two points for proding the article: WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. He did not, however, mention WP:ADVERT or WP:IINFO as a concern. At the time of the prod, given those were the specific concerns I addressed after removing it (by adding reliable sources as you've already acknowledged), would it not be reasonable to assume that these were the main issues? If there's some kind of disclaimer that needs to be on the article, I did not see one on List of National Wrestling Alliance territories, List of airlines of the United States or WP:LIST, perhaps someone may choose to "be bold"? I (and MPJ-DK) explained why WP:IINFO does not apply to this list. Can you explain why this list does not qualify for WP:LIST? Or why this would not be a legitimte stand-alone list? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of Airlines in the US advertise the airlines? Does List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions advertise the champions? Does "List of Grade A Buildings in Runcorn" advertise the buildings? It's a list that gives you an overview of a topic, namely "Wrestling in Mexico", if it's "Advertisement" then every single article on wrestling promotions are advertisement as weell. MPJ -DK 05:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to create an airline? Very hard. Only a select few can do it. Ditto "winning" ANY world championship (let alone CMLL). A building has no direct advertising potential as such.

Now - how hard is it to create a wrestling promotion? Easy. All you need is a ring, a venue, some money and some other trinkets and you're in business. See where I'm going here? Little promotions are always looking for ANY way to advertise cheeply - and Wikipedia has been the target of such things. Hence the existence of WP:ADVERT. That's why we have notability rules. The NWA doesn't let just any old fed join up. They have standards to maintain. Now if they DID do that, then I would question the notability of the NWA Territories list. But they don't. !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL these days NWA let's anyone who pays the fee join, don't just make up stuff. Also so what if there are backyard feds? they're not on this list, so what if there are small time feds that are not notable?? they're not on the list. All entries on the list are notable enough that they could have their own article. It's not a valid argument for deletion since it does not pertain to the list in question. MPJ -DK 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not qualify for WP:ADVERT because it contains absolutely zero information which blatantly advertises these promotions. You have had many opportunities to provide a specific example. As I have already pointed out to you this list actually contains "less" information then Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. Would any the information listed in the template be considered advertisement? This list does not contain contact information, upcoming events, or any other information that would be considered promoting these organizations. Because of this, it also is disqualified from WP:NOTDIR for the same reasons.

I also think you're missing the point of why I pointed out the NWA and US Airlines list. You contend that lists are not allowed to have entries in which Wikipedia does not have an article for them. This, you claim, is because if they were notable they would already have an article. This list (and the others you've nominated) essentially covers the exact same information that is on the two lists I've pointed out. It apparently "violates" the same polices you claim warrant this articles deletion.

Both you and Mal Case have made some interesting, if somewhat questionable, claims.

Mexico has "a very blurred line between proper feds and backyard". (From what I read here the Mexican athletic commissions are quite strict. Promo Azteca was heavily fined for its "hardcore" elements. And isn't backyard wrestling an American phenomenon? Even so, can you prove that any of the promotions listed are "backyard feds"?)
Establishing a wrestling promotion is "easy" compared to an airline. (Fair enough. What about a List of convenience stores?)

Perhaps you can cite some sources to support your statements. Given the number of resources I've added to this list, wouldn't that be a fair request to do so in this discussion? And to Mal Case, it's recommended by WP:LIST to use {{Stand-alone list}} instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.42.165 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard wrestling is worldwide. No exceptions. It's the nature of the business. I know there are backyard feds in Australia for example. The list of convenience stores is in fact in trouble under WP:IINFO so in fact bringing that up helps my case for deletion. Besides, that speaks of chains and not individual stores. A chain would have strict rules, and besides even setting up such a store would be harder than setting up a wrestling promotion. Remember that there are very few countries that regulate pro wrestling. In Australia, only the state of New South Wales has a regulatory body. There is no federal body. I don't doubt what you say about Mexico's controlling body, but that still doesn't stop "tin-pot" feds from popping up.

Why should I source my statements? This is a discussion based on opinion per WP rules. Trying to challenge my opinion outside of the rules reveals a NPOV issue with you. You are clearly determined to retain this list no matter what to the point of WP:IAR. I oppose that view point and you are clearly not allowing me to do so by cherry picking my valid points to pieces. You've said all that needs to be said as have I. This is my last statement to you on this AfD. We are getting nowhere and the last thing either of us want right now is a no consensus result. We need other opinions (aside from MPJ) and this AfD is being short circuited by your long winded comments that will make others think TL;DR and not even get involved. Well done. I think there may even be a rule against doing that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a subjective statement, say Promo Azteca was the most popular promotion in Mexico in 1996, unless I give a source to support this statement then this is based on my personal point of view not an established fact (e.g. the US has 50 states, the Earth is round, etc.). To do otherwise is intentionally misleading. You say "backyard feds" are worldwide? Fine. Are any of the promotions on this list "backyard feds"? If there are then please name one. Otherwise, its irrelevant to the discussion.

Your comments about the article are, once again, misleading. The convenience store article is not so much "in trouble", as if it had been proded or nominated for AFD, so much as it had been tagged for cleanup. Note the editor felt the list need to be cleaned up not deleted and allowed considerable time to do so. That was my point to bringing up this article. I can point out lists for restaurants and other "small businesses" that are allowed on Wikipedia (including GA and FL-grade lists). You say my comments are "long winded" (I'll take that as constructive criticism rather than a personal attack). That is also your opinion. I believe I'm being thorough as possible. Some people find that helpful. Others may find it annoying. Does that mean I have a conflict of interest or a hidden agenda? If you'll notice, there hasn't been a great deal of activity here. I also have the right to correct someone if there "vote" is based on an incorrect belief to points I have refuted earlier in the discussion (e.g. "this is being used as a business directory" or "this is an indiscriminate listing of "every" US promotion ever"). If you've paid attention to anything I've said here or elsewhere, my stance it the exact opposite of the "ignore all rules" policy. My main argument is that the policies you cite are being misapplied and ignore other basic policies (WP:LIST and WP:RED). Every argument I've made has clearly refuted your points. I've been specific as to how WP:LIST and WP:RED apply. Why do you consider this "nit picking" or "cherry picking" your arguments? Even Mal Case has admitted I bring up "a fair point". I should also point out I not only took the initiative of getting a third-party opinion I even went to someone from your own wikiproject. I even agreed to withdraw from this discussion if he decided to side with you. Is this really an act of sabotage? You claim what I'm doing is in bad faith (see [17], [18]) and you "think there may even be a rule against doing that". But doesn't Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions apply here? 71.184.42.120 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reference has been added for Promo Azteca. In the November 1997 edition of Pro Wrestling Illustrated, the magazine removed the "Most Popular" and "Most Hated" ratings, leaving room to feature more promotions. In total, eight promotions were featured in their ratings: WWF, WCW, ECW, USWA, New Japan, All Japan, EMLL, and Promo Azteca. In terms of asserting notability, I'm sure that being selected to be featured in the company of those other 7 should do the trick. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Close and relist This AfD has been hijacked by both the nominator and the objector who are both violating WP:SNOW in this AfD. No one will read all of this. Justa Punk's last comment is correct but he is just as guilty as the IP is. AinslieL (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly, may I ask, am I guilty of? I think I've made many valid points in this discussion. Your statement seems to imply that I, and Justa Punk, are acting in bad faith. Because this discussion has become "too long to read", somehow we've "hijacked" this discussion and our points (right or wrong) are invalid? Again, I point to Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. Per WP:SNOW, can you explain how I have engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, overly long comments are bureaucratic behaviour by default. You only need to be brief, link the rules and leave it at that. But you haven't. Pretty simple I would have thought. I agree with Ainslie about relisting this to get a proper consensus, but when it is I'll be voting KEEP. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand I am being penalized because my comments are "too long to read"? I am not a professional writer. If my "writing style" isn't all that particularly engaging, or even interesting, it's certainly not intentional. In reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I was led to believe that citing policy without specifing why is discouraged in AFD discussions. 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes relist it and see if anyone wants to delete an article with 65 sources. MPJ -DK 16:33, 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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the entries with more than two reliable sources to the existing article on professional wresting in Mexico - certainly seems well referenced, but as there are only a few entries, merging to the main saves readers a click and adds much needed refs to that list (and better formatting/info). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Anma. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established through plethora of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:RS citations which demonstrate WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Anma if no one else will agree to keep - seems to be adequately sourced (65 sources certainly seems like enough!), although I would be fine with simply adding it to the other article, which does not have the full list. But it does seem like it needs to go somewhere. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:20, 24 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) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The City Council Band[edit]

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

There is a lack of notability and seemingly little community effort to clean the article. It has also had multiple unchecked issues for some time. (I know the last two points don't count towards the deletion policy, but they do seem to point towards an overall lack of notability.) Ryankiefer (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ryankiefer (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I found is a press release and a short profile at the website of a local festival. This is not enough to meet the WP:BAND requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsigned, uncharted, unreferenced. I found a few hits via a Google search like this and this, but I can't find enough sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. If someone could find a significant and independent article in reliable sources about the band, I might reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Unsigned and every bit as non-notable as the "ironic" band name would suggest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 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 close as moot. Article was already speedily deleted as advertising by User:Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software Technologies[edit]

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

Notability asserted. Gnews lists six hits - three PR releases, one article about how an employee is selling his house, and the rest brief mentions. The linked CeoWorld article is decent but one article doesn't bring notability per WP:CORP. Other links in the article aren't really relevant. I think this fails notability and propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:35, 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 This was close, but in the end, the arguments by Cirt and Jclemens won out. I know that the majority of !votes were to delete, but it isn't the number of !votes, but rather the strength of the argument. I do believe that it needs to be cleaned up and probably renamed. I wouldn't mind seeing something where the Suicides were meaningful or played a significant role in the fiction. But being a poorly organized list that needs help is not justification for deleting. Cirt showed that suicides in fiction is a notable subject, which is what really matters.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List which fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is just that. Claritas § 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly broad scope that fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, and WP:NOTDIR. Over 90% of the entries are unsourced. —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the previous discussion, I was willing to support keeping this because there were promises to improve the sourcing, scope, etc. In the nine months since then, there has been some improvement, but not nearly enough. It remains a broad and indiscriminate list full of unsourced items and other material that doesn't seem to match even the broadest possible scope of such a list. If this can't be brought up to standards in nine months, it most likely never will be, and we shouldn't host overbroad lists that can't meet standards. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of suicides in notable fiction might be a better choice for a title. If the fiction was notable, then this aspect is important to note. Some of the suicides most likely were important enough to be mentioned in reviews, as key plot elements. Dream Focus 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed that back in the last discussion in September, and neither you or any other editor has removed non-notable entries or added citations, so I think this is a rather weak argument. Claritas § 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing up articles should be a team effort, I propose a criteria to be put into place here. Okay so the idea has been proposed, I did not see any effort for improvement from you either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep because the other guy should have done all the work" is not a valid argument. Nine months have elapsed since the last deletion nomination, enough time for anyone to fix the list if that was going to happen. It's not going to happen. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the responsibility of those who !vote "Keep" in discussions to contribute to the article so that the flaws which resulted in it being brought to AFD have been addressed. If the list is kept, I will do my best to improve it by removing all uncited entries apart from those which are obviously notable, and providing citations for those. Claritas § 15:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this list to work a criteria for notability needs to be but into place, I see potential here as there are notable suicides in fiction out there, some which have influenced the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine to me. If you believe something shouldn't be on the list, despite being a suicide in a notable work of fiction, then discuss it on the talk page of that article. Dream Focus 10:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Revised to keep, Dream brings up a great idea. One of the most famous being Romeo and Juliet I feel a list of notable suicides would be better. Rename to List of suicides in notable fiction and cleanup/reference the list - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about List of notable suicides in fiction? This way, one has to verify that the fictional suicide is notable via reliable third-party sources. But under it's current name or even under List of suicides in notable fiction, the scope is far too broad. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some is uncited and valueless rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figures in notable fiction are appropriate content for a list of this sort. The argument that "some is uncited" means they need to be cited, not the entire article removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:SALAT- too indiscriminate; and userify to anyone who wants to trim it down and purge all the non-notable entries (which are a vast majority of this list). There's potential for a Suicides in fiction article that would be quite good... but this isn't it. Courcelles (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple books have been written about this very subject itself, referencing the subject specifically, in the very title of the books [19]. Some of these books include: Suicide and fiction, Suicide in Henry James's fiction‎, Suicide in Joseph Conrad's fiction, Suicide in American fiction: 1798-1909, and Rising to the Surface: Suicide as Narrative Strategy in Twentieth-Century Women's Fiction. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but wouldn't it be better simply to have an article titled Sucide in fiction as opposed to the present list ? Claritas § 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sucide in fiction is too broad though in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently it looks like consensus is to either delete this alltogether or make another article from it because it does show potential to some, if it is to be renamed may I suggest that it be done on the talk page as there looks like to be a few diffrent renaming suggestions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I would rename to notable suicides, but most of them aren't notable.RussianReversal (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proposal to only include notable works of fiction and/or notable suicides in fiction sounds good, but suffers from the same problem - how notable is notable and what does putting them all together in a list accomplish? This list has Romeo and Juliet, but it doesn't include Brutus, who committed suicide at the end of Julius Caesar. The character and the play are notable, but how about the actual act - is his suicide notable? Or doesn't it matter so long as the character and the play are? And what do you get from putting together a list of the (I assume) thousands of suicides in fiction? Maybe a category or series of categories would be better? I think I prefer the suggestion made above to make an article about suicide in fiction, which seems as though it would be a great topic to explore. Matt Deres (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Would not object to suicide in fiction article but listing every single one is just inviting a coatrack of original research for a list of inappropriate scope.Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Previous discussions over "list of fictional X" have generally resulted in a wholesale paring of NN entries, an establishment of clear criteria, improved referencing, and thus improved (and kept) articles. I'm afraid many of the delete !votes are ignoring the fact that AfD is not for cleanup: if it can be fixed, it should not be deleted, even if no one cares to lift a finger during the AfD process. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This list is too broad in scope. Movementarian (Talk) 08:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR. This can be dealt with by a category if required, though I doubt that. It is also not a notable concept, however the discussion (not list) about suicides in fiction might be interesting, but that would be a different article and wouldn't require a list of this sort. Verbal chat 08:13, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeva May[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. current sources are all self published sites WP:SPS. nothing really in gnews [20] which includes a namesake in Ireland and [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was not able to find any relaible sources to satisfy notability requirements. Movementarian (Talk) 08:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Film career fails WP:ENT big time. [22] Searches for ballet career under original and stage name fails WP:ENT [23] If someone finds reviews of her work, I might reconsider.. but I struck out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice & the Pharaoh[edit]

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

Contested prod. POV article about a documentary film. Inadequately referenced. No evidence of notability andy (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF. No evidence of a theatrical release, that it was on television, or any critical reviews. I restored the AfD tag, which was removed by the prinicpal editor, Mblegacy. Movementarian (Talk) 07:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: another film from the same stable, with the same problems, is being AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Microcosm to Macrocosm. andy (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability and is quite promotional in nature. Eeekster (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Talks with Farouk Abdulaziz[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a documentary file. No evidence of notability; the article contains unreferenced biographical material contrary to WP policy; non-neutral language. andy (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 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. Merge discussion could be undertaken at the article's talk page if desired. Shimeru 09:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Elmaloglou[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. only 1 notable role for TV series appearance only. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum simply appearing on a notable TV series with cult following does not mean that this individual is automatically notable. I also question his role as "notable" in the video releases due to a lack of evidence. so he fails all 3 criteria of WP:ENT in my opinion, no notable multiple roles (yes we can confirm multiple roles but not necessarily notable), no large fan base of Sebastian and obviously no major contribution to this field. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum One may ignore or discount (as the nominator does) that the character of Max Sutherland of Home and Away has his followers. His appearing in multiple episodes of a notable television series AND in 2 feature-length video releases specifically do meet WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The nominator is entitled to an opinion... but then, so are other editors, battlefield aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no evidence of a significant role in the 2 videos, please provide. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself stated that his role as Max Sutherland was notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, that was for the TV series, and my opinion. you still fail to provide evidence of a significant role in the 2 videos. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know your opinion. How have you decided that the character could be notable in a television series and yet not be so in a film? Catch-22? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unless some reliable sources report Sebastian's significant role in the videos, we cannot automatically presume it's significant. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Catch-22. Interesting assertion... that while the actor has an admittedly notable role in the series, his role must then be somehow automaticaly non-notable in the two films, if it would conflict with your wish to delete. Sorry. Ain't buying it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not automatically non-notable, WP relies on verifiable reliable evidence. on the same token you are assuming automatic notability based on a) home and away having a cult following b) notable role in TV series means notable role in any spin off media. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to contend that a character who is notable in a television series cannot possibly be notable in the film series, without proof to the contrary. Shoe on other foot... do your own research to prove your contention that the widely distributed and well-received films based upon a notable television series are not notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have again skewed my comments and again ignored my having repeatedly stated that even cursory searches find the character of Max Sutherland of Home and Away has his followers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN relies you to provide evidence to prove notability. you have to admit there is no reliable coverage proving his significant role in the videos. he could be significant but I don't see the evidence. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state 2+2=4 and then say 1+3 "might" equal 4, but demand me doing your math homework for you. Tell ya what... I'll go ask over at Talk: Home and Away for you, if you'd like. They are the fans and have speedier access to what you demand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:ENT. First for having a notable role in multiple episodes of a notable series which has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and second for also having notable roles in 2 full-length video releases based upon that notable series. Article requires expansion and additional sourcing, a surmountable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know he has notable roles in the videos, the videos are spin offs of the TV series which the same set of actors and production crew. it's a grey area whether this counts as multiple series. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an actor myself, it is not grey to me. You argument is akin to declaring that the Rocky (film series) is all one project. Had he not been important to script and film, production would have not brought him over for the two non-tv feature-length video films, as they did not include all the series' actors. Notable then is notable now, even with his career having stopped in 2004. Or are you now denying the show's notability, or reversing yourself from your opening statement that his role in the series is notable? Or are you denying its (still) strong cult following? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" refers to the individual not the show. there is no evidence that Sebastian Elmaloglou has a cult following, the show he acts on does, but it does not follow that all actors on this show are automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing "all actors"... only this one... and you yourself said his role was notable in your opening comments. And "cult following" can apply to individuals OR shows (IE: Rocky Horror Picture Show). And even a modest search finds that Max Sutherland of Home and Away has his followers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:ENT again, it clearly refers to cult following of individual not based on shows/films they've appeared on. using your logic, anyone appearing on Home and Away gets automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And re-read my comments again. You must have missed where I offered that a modest search finds that Max Sutherland (his character) of Home and Away has his followers. And even without that following, he meets WP:ENT through "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The television show is notabe. The video films (IE: other productions) are notable. That becomes "multiple" and meets ENT. Disagree all you wish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do you have evidence that he actually played significant roles on the 2 videos? We can verify Sebastian's appearance but I cannot see any evidence of significant roles. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how he meets this criterion. thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it would be obvious that it's the same thing as what Schmidt said. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everyone seems to get this but the nominator. The notable shows the actor has been on, makes them notable. See how many blue links there are? Those are notable series, thus the actor has a notable career. Dream Focus 03:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wonder how you stumbled on this one, Dream Focus, read WP:ENT, appearing on a notable series does not equate to automatic notability for every single actor on it. I've already explained how it fails WP:ENT on all 3 subcriteria. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the new additions to the Rescue Squadron's list. [24] See? This is on it. Micheal already explained it to you, or tried to. Not going to bother repeating what others have already said. Dream Focus 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: No one except you is trying to drag on and on about "other actors". We are trying to discuss this ONE, and it's been repeatedly explained how he passes WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently fails WP:ENT, which requires that the actor have multiple, significant roles in notable productions. There is no indication in the sources provided that this has happened. Arguably, his role as Max Sutherland in the soap opera can be considered a significant role in a single production (multiple episodes of a the same TV show are not considered multiple roles). However, I haven't yet heard an argument that his roles in any of the other productions were significant. Therefore, the article appears to fail the "multiple" part of WP:ENT. SnottyWong talk 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources provided are very, very, very marginal: to call them name-drops would be to overstate their substantiality. Fails WP:N by a long margin, and the claim to meet WP:ENT is weak at best. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have significant stage roles in Burnt Piano and Gypsy Boy. For their notability:

Burnt Piano

"Burnt Piano strikes a chord."

Daily Telegraph, 11 March 1999, 288 words, (English)

"Family Tackles Burning Issues"

Sydney Morning Herald , 12 March 1999, 622 words, (English)

"Jangling notes as Piano fails to ignite."

The Australian, 12 March 1999, 680 words, (English)

"Engrossing voyage around Godot."

Sunday Telegraph, 14 March 1999, 380 words, (English)

Gypsy Boy

"Wandering minstrel - Summer Live."

Daily Telegraph, 29 December 2000, 616 words, (English)

"January Is A Time For Fairytales And Gypsies"

Canberra Times, 1 January 2001, 491 words, (English)

"Caravan With Space For Ideas"

Sydney Morning Herald, 8 January 2001, 646 words, (English)

"Carpenter Crafts A Beauty"

Sun Herald, 14 January 2001, 465 words, (English)

That makes the multiple roles asked for. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this kid on Home and Away and he was certainly notable at the time. But if you look at his filmography he really not particularly notable. He's hardly Melissa George is he.... He played one charatcer and appeared once or twice elsewhere. But nothing for six years. I'm leaning towards weak delete based on his TV performances but leaning towards weak keep for his stage work and those sources mentioned combined. But he is not exactly an "essential" actor article is he... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Home and Away. I was going to suggest only merge because I was treating the H&A films as extensions of the original series, but that is something I cannot know or assume. If the notability of his role in the films is in question, that is a sourcing issue which means it's time for WP:ATD. If it's shown they are essentially extensions of the show, that means he doesn't have notable roles in two notable productions, and he fails WP:ENT and should be merged into H&A's articles. - BalthCat (talk) 00:13, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Scott[edit]

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

nominating for WP:ONEVENT. only gets coverage for his unique baseball ability. having such an ability is in itself not enough to establish notability. WP:CRYSTAL regarding future success as well. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could go either way on this one. I can see that there is only one event that this individual is known for, but his story has been covered by extensively, including by national sources, such as ESPN (via AP), The New York Times (via AP), and Fox News. Regardless, the article could use a little bit of cleanup and better writing if the decision is to keep it. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:ATH. He is only recieved news covereage because he can pitch a little faster than kids his own age and his parents refused to move him to a more advanced league. ~~The claim he will be drafted first in 2018 fails WP:CRYSTAL.~~ Movementarian (Talk) 09:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim he will be drafted in 2018. Instead, it claims that sources predict he will be drafted, which is a legitimate thing to report. If only it were true. The reference for this statement doesn't support it, so I've removed it from the article. Ma^t_chups 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I misread that. Thanks. Movementarian (Talk) 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The kid is not notable. There are a lot of alleged grown-ups acting like jerks; let's move this material to an article on the league. Ma^t_chups 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oneevent, we can revisit in a few years. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 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) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Zeng[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, being a 10 year old champion is not sufficient. blatant fancruft. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, fails WP:ATHLETE. Still... You go girl! Location (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATH. Movementarian (Talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. You know an article is a hopeless vanity piece when it says how they're doing in school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 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. early delete votes were weak and the delete side has not sucessfully challenged the sources provided Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Letts[edit]

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

Not notable Sadads (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom? The nom didn't provide any explanation. --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any third party sources on this. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both the Washington Post and the Annapolis Capital have given very significant coverage to this topic.[25][26] According to one of the sources, the camp is over ~~1000~~ 100 years old. The nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why they think this topic is "Not notable." --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you mean 100 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sourcing found bu Oakshade. Edward321 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of reliable sources found at Google News.[27] --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is called significant coverage above are a couple of human interest stories that say, gosh, this camp is 100. But this is does not constitute analysis in secondary sources, the standard for an encyclopedia article. Other summer camps over 100 years old include Camp Mowglis (founded 1903) YMCA Camp St. Croix, Lake Delaware Boys' Camp, YMCA Camp Eberhart, Camp Lincoln - Camp Lake Hubert, and Camp Wachusett. There are many more, I just searched by "founded 1903" or "founded 1909" and "summer camp". Try searching by some other years. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Human interest stories" are in fact significant provided they provide depth are not trivial mentions. You might not like the coverage, but that doesn't make it insignificant.--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the coverage might not be interesting or provide the depth needed for an encyclopedia article. These are in the Style and Local sections of the papers. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a clear-cut case, but the sources provided appear to just about show significant coverage in reliable sources and hence notability per WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply troubled by your notion that what look like little more than press releases constititute "significant" coverage. Could you point out the analysis of the topic in these sources? Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Sadads (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a slanderous charge of the integrity of reporters Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol that they were paid by the topic and didn't report on their stories objectively. I'm considering removing your comment per WP:BLP.--Oakshade (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...? BLP does not apply to a discussion about the notability of an Article.... Sadads (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. WP:BLP states very clearly "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." You can't just slander someone on a talk page about another topic and claim you're immune to BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate thing to do when confronted with facts that show that a topic is not notable is to change your vote, not to fabricate a charge that I am slandering. The coverage is trivial, and I hope that no amount of pile-on voting will prevent this article from being deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide any evidence that Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post and Jacob Linger of the Annapolis Capitol wrote "press releases." Otherwise you are slandering them. That's not fabrication. And no. When a topic passes WP:GNG as this one does, I'm not going to change my vote because another editor slandered the reporters of the coverage that establishes notability.--Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When another user says "seems like", that is not saying it is a press release, it is saying that it reads like a press release. WP:AGF. What this means is the coverage is trivial, it is without analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:GNG as a "one sentence mention." The coverage provided here are far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention" and passed WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the triviality from one of the articles "Can we do your hair, Kayla?" a group of 14-year-old girls call out as they head back to Cabin 31 to primp for the biggest night of the session: the camp dance. Kayla's sprawled in a chair in front of the camp office, looking a little sunburned. She's surrounded by counselors showing the telltale signs of "night off" freedom -- lip gloss, lacy tops, jewelry." <---Look at it! Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not your intent, by reproducing that excerpt from a 2566 page article directly about this topic you are providing evidence of this topic passing WP:GNG. This is in fact part of an in-depth article about the topic. You don't care for the nature of the writing that includes girls at this camp talking about their camp dance, but that doesn't affect it passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the content of the source matters. Why don't you integrate any encyclopedic information from the sources into the article? Instead of claiming that the article passes the GNG, make it pass the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this back to the coverage: this is behind a paywall, but reading the intro it seems very likely that it provides a reasonable enough level of depth, and this one says in the description that it contains 2566 words, which is definitely significant. Both these sources seem reliable, so for me that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There's also another Washington Post article here, but it's not clear if that's significant enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, significance is in the content, not the length. For all we know, the article lists a number of local summer camps. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of those articles does not supply any meaningful information about the Camp, instead as Abductive has pointed out, they talk about people who are irrelevant to the camp. This camp is simply not notable enough for the articles to provide useful information for Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - others have found plenty of objective reports about this 107 year old YMCA camp. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing WP:V with WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 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 speedy delete under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Hartemink[edit]

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

Although there appears to be a scientist with this name who has publications, I could not find evidence of notability (sources discussing the person) and much of the content looks like a hoax. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:42, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Smackdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD closed as no consensus because no one commented. This is a non-notable band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 05:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any real notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 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 redirect to Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!. Shimeru 09:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davin Wood[edit]

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject. Do not believe the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO J04n(talk page) 01:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and "mention" Interesting case... a composer that does not cut albums, but instead composes music for numerous notable comedy series. It would then seem he does meet WP:MUSICBIO #10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show". For instances such as his, guideline recommends a redirect and "mention". So how about to either cult favorites Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! or Tom Goes to the Mayor? And yes, while I have myself worked on both series, I do not personally know Davin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Where are you suggesting the page get redirected to? Why not source the article and !vote keep? I'll withdraw if reliable sources are added. J04n(talk page) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I would have loved to have found enough for Wood to merit a seperate article, and looked for some expansive sources. But it seems Wood maintains a low personal profile. While his work as composer certainly might be verified, any sourced WP:V of that work will fail WP:GNG. And so, per WP:MUSICBIO #10, as the article has the verifiable claim of his having composed music for notable television series, and with the lack of significant coverage for that or other work, my own thought now is the guideline suggested redirect to the series for which he has the most credits (49) as composer... in this case to Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!. In preparation for the redirect (and editors are welcome to revert if they disagree), I just added a couple sentences to TEASGJ about his work as composer, being sure to include contextual mention of some of his other related series.[28] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect is fine, the funny this is that I thought 'Tim and Eric Awesome Show' and 'Great Job!' were two different shows. J04n(talk page) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And if the AFD sits open for a bit, others may have better luck than did we in finding expansive sources. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 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. Shimeru 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart[edit]

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

as per WP:ONEVENT. also nothing in gnews [29]. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that our article on Stillbirth Remembrance Day covers this pretty well anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Stillbirth Remembrance Day. Fences&Windows 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stillbirth Remembrance Day. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matt Deres, already covered. No material is usable in a merge as no references are provided. SpinningSpark 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a stillbirth is the purest example of one event that could be conceived. Abductive (reasoning) 06:28, 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 no consensus. Shimeru 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mugdha Vaishampayan[edit]

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

overly promotional, and lacks reliable sources to meet WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [30] despite the glowing claims of the article. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. She placed second in a singing reality show and has sung one song for another TV show. The awards she has received are all city level awards.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the apparent Universal record deal. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's the television station Zee Marathi that has the contract with Universal, not this lady. (See here). The station's put together a number of compilation albums using content from its television shows, and Ms Vaishampayan has appeared on the compilations in this capacity. But Vaishampayan herself doesn't appear to have any particular recording contract. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is true for the "Pancharatna" Album, Aathawa Swar is a completely new album, Zee Marathi has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabodh1987 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I have created this wikipage in past. Don't see a reason why it is being termed as "overly Promotional". All that is written are facts. And I am updating it on regular basis. Appending with latest information and proceedings. I have also provided external links and references wherever possible. You can run search on google by name of "Mugdha Vaishampayan" and it will return ample results !! http://www.google.com/search?q=mugdha+vaishampayan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 117.195.14.89 Vickstp (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC) — Vickstp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS regarding use of google to show notability.LibStar (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of signficant coverage in reliable independent sources and per skepticism about recording contract per my comments above. References in article are either not significant, not independent (her sites and sites of the TV station), or not reliable (YouTube). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, She has sung for NDTV Imagine dialy Soap 'Kaashi'. Titles show her name as only lead singer. She has recorded songs for two marathi movies so far. Name of one movie is "Let'z Go". Recently Universal Music Launched new Album "Aathawa Swar" (आठवा स्वर) where Mugdha has sung 3 songs. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/litala-cempasa-albama-athava-svara/122417764459106 See the coverage of this Album Launch by leading Marathi News Channel STAR MAZA (स्टार माझा) from STAR INDIA Network. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aTRybZ8uCo 216.10.193.21 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on reliable sources. To establish notability for this singer (and thereby save her article from deletion) you are required to provide significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Facebook is neither a reliable site, nor an independent one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:Music guidelines - Criteria for musicians and ensembles

"9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

Mugdha had participated and broke into top 5 finalists in TV show Idea SARGEMA on Zee Marathi which had highest TRP rating in music reality shows so far. (9,12) She was aired on television from July'08 t0 Feb'09.(9,12)

Even today, 3-4 hour programmes of their concert tours are shown on Marathi channels like Zee Marathi, SAAM, Star Maza and Mi Marathi.(9,12)

Till date, Mugdha was interviewed and appeared on Radio Channels like Radio Surabhi Satelite, 98.3 FM radio Mirchi, 91.1 FM Radio One, All India Radio, Mumbai.(11)

She has sung for NDTV Daily soap. She was part of seven albums. पंचरत्न भाग १,२,३. गर्जती सह्याद्रीचे कडे, जय हरी विठ्ठल, आठवा स्वर, डार्लिंग डार्लिंग (Exclusive her songs). All launched by Universal Music, India.(10)

She has rendered voice for two Marathi movies so far. Name of one movie is 'Let'z Go' and second is un-named. Both will go to floor soon. I will provide links for the same as reference.(10)

Please see its complying with criteria 9,10,11 and 12 of WP:Music.

Why it is then marked for deletion? Plz revoke the action. Vickstp (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing need to be said and done after the arguments put down here by Vickstp. Mugdha is enormously popular in Maharashtra. Even today, after 2 years she participated in the reality show, Mugdha performs in live shows all over Maharashtra. Mugdha was a part of the Celebrity Tour to Europe by Kesari Tours. Mugdha has performed in numerous shows. You will find the details of some of them in the article itself. She was invited to Dubai for a live show. Prabodh 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Vickstp said is quite convincing. If we could have a Google news archive search done in the native language, perhaps we'd find more results. Has anyone who speaks this language looked through her official site, or searched the Wikipedia for that language for leads on more information? Dream Focus 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've generally held non-winning American Idol / So You Think You Can Dance etc contestants to be non-notable in the absence of them having done anything else of particular note; there's nothing in the material identified so far that suggests this lady is any different. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, as does Vickstp statement above, that she has done a theme song that is shown before notable shows [31]. I don't know what American Idol contestants you are referring to, but were these people that bombed and didn't get a record deal, or those that went on to do something that got noticed? Does that show get some people who can't sing just to humiliate them? Those people aren't notable, but some of the losers go on to make notable albums and get plenty of reviews for their work. Dream Focus 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Here are the links from CD Publisher's catalog for Mugdha's maiden Album 'Panchratna' which saw a record sell in Maharashtra, India.

First CD - http://www.umusicindia.com/album.php?albumid=566&hotcom=2&category=1 Second CD - http://www.umusicindia.com/album.php?albumid=567&hotcom=2&category=1 Third CD - http://www.umusicindia.com/album.php?albumid=568&hotcom=2&category=1

Link for Mugdha's show in Dubai. Coverage from Dubai's leading daily Khaleej Times. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?xfile=/data/citytimes/2009/May/citytimes_May119.xml&section=citytimes One sample advertisement of Mugdha's recent stage show in May 2010. http://marathiactors.com/2010/05/ranga-swaraanche-ek-rana-sangram-program/ Vickstp (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have now voted 3 times, please add additional notes as Comment. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is link giving detailed news and photos about Mugdha Vaishampayan performing in front of great spiritual world leader Sathya Sai Baba at his Puttaparthi Ashram in India. (Nov. 2009) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/When_Little_Champs_Regaled.htm

This official website link mentioned above says " These L’ll Champs are no ordinary folk. They were in Prasanthi Nilayam on a personal invitation from Bhagawan Himself. Impressed by their natural talent show at Hadshi, Bhagawan had asked them to come to Puttparthi to perform in Prasanthi Nilayam. …And one could not wait for a better opportunity than the auspicious occasion of celebrating His Divine Advent. A tiny tot in the group, cute champ Mugdha Vaishampayam was at her best singing melodiously, enacting to her best. Singing the famous number “Sai Tero Naam Easwar Tero Naam…” in His presence, with a pointer at Him as Allah, was a feast to the eyes and ears and the crowd went ecstatic, swaying to the tunes in merriment. Every song was received with thunderous relentless applause." Vickstp (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - News - Launch of Mugdha Vaishampayan's new Album "Aathava Swar" (आठवा स्वर) published in leading Marathi newspaper Sakaal 02 June 2010. http://72.78.249.125/esakal/20100602/4686885035779178982.htm Vickstp (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi, We have produced good number of evidences to rovoke the deletion. If we look at in an inspirational perspective, this article will help the youth as well as the guardians to mentor their childrens to set examples and will play a significant role in each ones life.

These are few more references you can refer to ..

http://punekar.in/site/2008/12/11/a-film-academy-for-upcoming-artistes/ (Times of India)

Also, news of Mugdha's scheduled grand performance in Goa published in leadind English daily Herald. Refer page 5. http://issuu.com/herald-goa/docs/may17 Campravin (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Campravi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ - jai, jai maharashtra maaja, Total 112 established singers and 356 chorus singers lent their voice to the song - Mugdha was the part of the team, was published in TImes of india

http://www.mumbaipluses.com/thaneplus/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=10&contentid=2010030620100309130656319ede364b3&sectxslt=&comments=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campravin (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Latest coverage. News about Mugdha's felicitation and performance in a program held at Pune. Captured in leading Marathi daily newspaper Sakaal. (20 June 2010). Link - http://72.78.249.107/Sakal/20Jun2010/Enlarge/PuneCity/PuneToday/page10.htm

Vickstp (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information on the page is true.

--Mandarrp (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) — Mandarrp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merely being true doesn't make something notable. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If the article was substantially cleaned up and the bias removed, I'd be more accepting of it, but as it stands it really reads more like a promotion of her, with little about her actual accomplishments. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:29, 24 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 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, Joe Chill is right. If more sources aren't found then we will be back here again in a few months. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANCA (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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) 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The consensus of the last AfD was that the only reliable source with significant coverage is this and that the article needs more work. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks to me like a pretty important company with global presence.Ekem (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deadline on improvements. If one finds an old AfD that was a keep with improvements and it wasn't improved, the thing to do is to try to improve it. It's a shame such keeps get neglected afterwards, but at least we can try to remedy the lack of work. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination isn't because of improvements. It's because of only one reliable source with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 13:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Global company with a reliable reference. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason for deletion. This article can be improved through editing. Movementarian (Talk) 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not my reason. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I inferred it from "and that the article needs more work" and was commenting on the last concensus, which was added as a comment. Movementarian (Talk) 16:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any company that wins the Australian Exporter of the year award is notable. Also, it did not take much effort to find the following:
- Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust) award (which I have added) and also the
- Premier of Victoria Hall of Fame Award "Victorian Manufacturing Hall of Fame" (which I have also added).
- The list of clients is also impressive, so I have added them.
- This is a B2B company so it is never going to feature highly in the mainstream press.
- (WP:AFD) says "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist."
- Please make an effort to fix an article before putting it up for AfD. The list of patents referred to in the previous AfD is also notable. AWHS (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)AWHS (talk) 04:53, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless HDMI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable. It is not a standard, technology, or trademark, but rather a colloquial term for several proprietary wireless products and technologies which do not use the term "Wireless HDMI" for obvious trademark reasons (examples: Wireless HD and WHDI standards, LG "Wireless 1080p", Philips "Wireless HDTV Link", Sony "Bravia Wireless Link", Asus "Wireless Display Connectivity", etc.) Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is an important concept. There should be at least a redirect to something useful on the same topic.Wfzimmerman (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is quite a lot in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Dewritech (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable topic with many sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this search. Joe Chill (talk) 14:55, 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. NW (Talk) 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wigger[edit]

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

WP:NOT a dictionary. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe this should be moved to Wikitonary if its not already there.I'd say Delete and every article that links to wigger should be re linked to wikitonary. STAT -Verse 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant subject that can be covered encyclopedically. -Drdisque (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, but is it within our policies? Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm willing to give the article a chance, but reliable sources need to be added soon. Otherwise, moving it to Wiktionary per STATic is the more prudent choice. Toad of Steel (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either this article fits or we should choose to WP:IGNORE. Certainly all article titles are words or terms that have dictionary definitions. The fact that the article already exhibits multiple sections (and exists not just as a single sentence) is evidence of the terms encyclopedic nature. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete α This is not a dictionary but this may have potential. But still it can be a flop. James1011R (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive, but clearly notable, based on potential online sources. Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though possibly rename. The concept is certainly notable; Ali G (the current page picture) is evidence of that. This article is also somewhat more than a dictionary definition. This may or may not be the best name for it, though. Robofish (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an extremely notable subculture for which an encyclopedia article can (and should) be written, outside of a simple definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:14, 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, fails WP:NSONGS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Is The Magic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. "Mind Is The Magic" was released this year as a single, but only reached number 80 in the French singles charts. As WP:NSONGS says, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is not enough information or notability here for a standalone article. Where is information regarding the recording process, lyrics, composition, instruments used, critical reception, etc? There isn't, so this article should be deleted. The album from which this track is taken doesn't even have an article. Existance, a cover image, a few sources and a very low charting position in France does not equal notability. Pyrrhus16 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Have some points of WP:NSONGS (have a chart, a release date and a cover (many articles does not has them)) but fails others. The article itself deserve an article, but this version of it needs a copy-edit. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted due to WP:MUS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This song is significant with the following reasons: 1. This song ranks in one music chart (not several, but a single only released in Europe cannot chart in Billboard or UK official chart) 2. There is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, and there will be more. 3. It is notable because it is the first officially released single for Michael Jackson after his death. And it is a rare non-sony/motown release for Michael Jackson. It's just like a place with no name, which could be not commercially successful, but quite importatnt. 4. What we should do is to find more information to expand or revise this article. Parabola1999 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before quoting WP:MUS, please try to understand it properly. It says that if it a single has charted, then it may be notable. Regardless, if there is not enough information to create a reasonably detailed article, then it should be deleted/merged/redirected. There is not enough information to create a reasonably detailed article. Reasonably detailed doesn't mean a few lines. Where is the information on the composition, recording, lyrics, critical reception? There is none. That it may be the first officially released single for Michael Jackson after his death doesn't matter, if there is not enough information or notability to sustain it as a standalone article. Pyrrhus16 16:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song does deserve its own article. Chelo61 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pyrrhus16's comments. Crystal Clear x3 06:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no information, is a stub. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:21, 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) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of embedded Linux devices[edit]

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

List topic too broad. List can never be complete and will be very large. Spuzzdawg (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inclusion criterion unclear, no intro to see what the article is about, no source for notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:18, 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.

Anushka Wirasinha[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casino zone[edit]

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

This band do not meet the requirements for notability as laid out at WP:BAND, namely it isn't the subject of any substantial media coverage nor has it released any albums through a record label. The two websites provided for notability are fairly trivial, the artrocker "article" doesn't seem particularly reliable and the birmingham mail article is a local paper that seems to print a simple questionnaire with one member of the band: not a substantial piece. As such I don't think it meets the requirements for notability and should be deleted. Woody (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Woody (talk) 17:08, 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) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. Speedy should not have been declined. -Drdisque (talk) 02:58, 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) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County[edit]

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

Contested PROD & PROD2 A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Codf1977 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I mentioned on Talk:Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County#Deletion, this organization is an oversight organization for dozens of other humanitarian organizations in the area. I'm talking with one of the employees of the organization to get some more detailed information for the article. For reference, they have a home page, an entry in the Community Information Online Consortium and other directories, a facebook page, and are mentioned in many local news articles. If mention of these constitutes notability, I can add them and other information such as organizational history and activities to fill out the article. If these additions would still be insufficient for notability, then go ahead and delete the thing. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organization. This is not a "lack of information" problem. It's a lack of notability problem that can't be fixed by just typing more stuff. -Drdisque (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the independent, significant coverage in reliable sources seems non existent. Nuttah (talk) 16:09, 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 redirect to Colors (TV channel). Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laagi Tujhse Lagan[edit]

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

Empty article without real content or indication of notability. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colors (TV channel) to preserve history. The article is for a current television series in India, but there is not enough content to warrant a separate article. Movementarian (Talk) 13:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 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) 00:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Abdalrahman Alruwaished[edit]

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

Attempting to add a source to this unreferenced BLP but can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some sources here, and I suspect that there may be more under different spellings (or, of course, in Arabic) as Arabic names tend to get transcribed in many different ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the better developed article about the subject, Abdallah Al Rowaished, if that survives its AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abdallah Al Rowaished, which appears to be a duplicate article on the same person, but is older and better developed. Notability has already been demonstrated in the AFD for that article. Robofish (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncited, still uncited, fails wiki notability. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't be verified through independent reliable sources - if any coverage exists, it should be kept per WP:BIO. He's not the same person as Abdallah Al Rowaished as far as I can see. Claritas § 16:46, 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. Shimeru 09:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naomh Moninne Hurling Club[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable amateur club. No independent sources cited, and no evidence of notability found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naomh Moninne Hurling Club. Club is notable for following reasons:

It has the distinction of being the first club to represent Louth in the Leinster Senior Club Hurling Championship back in 1974.
Since its foundation in 1959 it has been one of the most successful hurling clubs in County Louth, winning eleven Louth Junior Hurling Championships and eight Louth Senior Hurling Championships.
The club and its founder, Fr. Pól Mac Sheáin, were instrumental in founding the All-Ireland Poc Fada Championship, which is a popular annual event on the GAA calender, and has attracted some of Ireland's greatest ever hurlers, such as Ollie Walsh, Ger Cunningham, Davy Fitzgerald and Brendan Cummins.

For these reasons, Naomh Moninne Hurling Club is not just one of the most successful hurling clubs in Louth, but one of the most historic hurling clubs in all of Ireland. Wishboneash87 talk 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For reasons outlined above by Wishboneash87. Teester (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Lacks significant coverage in sources that are independent of subject. Gigs (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keepNeeds more reliable sources but notability is there for all to see. All GAA clubs are amateur, which doesn't militate against notability.194.80.52.158 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not nationally notable, never mind by the standards of wikipedia. Otherwise my kids' local judo club would be up there in lights. And these sort of priests ("local priest, an tAthair Pól Mac Sheáin (Father Paul Johnston), introduced the game of hurling to young boys from the Fatima area of Dundalk.") raise all sorts of awful concerns now.Red Hurley (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, all the "Naomh Moninne" "Cumann Peile nÓg" "An tAthair Mac Sheáin" phrases need to be in English on English wikipedia, or translated with the Irish originals. Was Father "Johnston" not probably a MacShane Johnson, the Ui Neill sept from Armagh? Was he ordained under the surname Mac Sheáin or Johnson? Too rough as well as lack of notability.Red Hurley (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This wiki page is not meant to put the Naomh Moninne club "up there in lights", it is merely there to provide information about the club as part of an ongoing effort to improve the coverage of Gaelic games on Wikipedia. It is therefore within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games. Furthermore, this is one of the most informative and best cited articles on a GAA club that I have come across on Wikipedia, so if it meets the criteria for deletion, then should all articles on GAA clubs be deleted? I think not. Das_shtig talk 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair insinuate anything suspect about Fr Paul Johnston just because he is a priest. It is merely factual information that he introduced the game of hurling to the youth of Fatima, Dundalk and it is certainly no reason for deleting the whole article. This is just one sentence and can be phrased differently if needs be. Das_shtig talk 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

‘Naomh Moninne’ and ‘Cumann Peile nÓg’ are not "phrases", they are entities with Irish names and therefore do not need to be in English. Examples include Bus Éireann and Bord Gáis. I know from a direct source that Fr Paul Johnston was ordained as Fr Johnston but liked to be known as ‘an tAthair Mac Sheáin’, as he was a great fan of the Irish language. Again, this is trivial stuff that can be resolved without deleting the article. Das_shtig talk 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm intrigued where a Mac Sheáin becomes Johnston and not Johnson. It seemed a bit mickey mouse. For foreign users of wikipedia "Cumann Peile nÓg" should be translated - but keep the original as well. I'll change from delete to "reword and tidy up please".Red Hurley (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable amateur club. A few local news items does not cut it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:40, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but neither of the 2 !voters have addressed the nominator's concern that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Operation M.D.[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BAND. ^Bongo_matic 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band is made of a significant group of musicians leading me to believe that it is notable -Drdisque (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more work is needed on the article (such as but not limited to): Origin 2 places listed!. Categorising properly in Canadian cats if indeed band was formed in Ajax and not in LA. Argolin (talk) 01:03, 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.