Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 18

< 17 June	19 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot companion[edit]

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

The term "hot companion" is not the one used for these objects: the discovery paper uses "hot compact object" [1], which Google reveals to have been used in discussions of other systems where it is not clear whether the object is a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole, e.g. the usage in the GCVS variable star type list [2]. Furthermore subsequent study of the two objects in question reveals that, contrary to the initial media hype, they are most likely to be white dwarf stars [3], for which we already have an article. While it might be desirable to have an article about hot compact objects in astrophysics (which may or may not be in binary systems and therefore "companions"), there does not seem to be much rationale for having an article devoted to these two objects alone. Icalanise (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not apply to these two objects alone, but is a common astronomical term for describing, well, hot companions of uncertain designation. Delete it for now though, I guess: not much there. — Aldaron • T/C 23:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a term more suited to a dictionary. "Hot companion (n): (in astronomy) a component of a binary system that is hot relative to the primary"... Icalanise (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and if the central star is something cool, like a red supergiant, and the companion is a hotter star, like say an blue giant, then the "hot companion" is a giant star, according to the definition in the article. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was previously discussed at WT:ASTRO, see the talk archive (do not reply to that section, it has been archived). 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the title, I was expecting this to be about people like Amy Pond but it turns out to be respectable astronomy. The phenomenon seems reasonably common and merits coverage here. The suggestion that this is dictionary material is mistaken. Please see WP:STUB and our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is an indiscriminate term, like "fast car". It is not a phenomenon, it is a companion to a star that is hotter than the star, such a companion is indiscriminately described, without discriminating between stars and non-stellar objects. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Rather than describing a unique class of astronomical objects, the word 'hot' here is little more than an adjective. Why is it noteworthy enough to merit an article? It is not clear that this article is ever going to be anything besides a list.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason it got an article in the first place was because the NASA press machine decided to market KOI-74b and KOI-81b as being a new class of object, rather than the white dwarf stars a more careful analysis shows they actually are. Besides that, it is a trivial term used to designate hot components of a binary system whose nature is unclear. Icalanise (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would invite participants in this discussion to look at the Google Scholar search results helpfully listed in the nomination, as none of the comments above seem to address the issue of whether they demonstrate this to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the majority of uses on the first many hits at Gscholar deal with hot stars, such as A-type stars, and binary star systems, many of the thermodynamic and stellar dynamics issues of such binary star configurations should be dealt with in the binary star article, and its subsidiary articles such as X-ray binary. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every single binary star system has a hotter component and a cooler component (since no two stars are perfectly alike, one must be hotter than the other), if the cooler component is the more massive, then the less massive hotter star would be a "hot companion", thus this term is highly indiscriminate. On Wiktionary, this would be deleted as a "SOP term" that can be described using each component term, without a separate definition for the whole (SOP == "sum of parts") 70.29.212.131 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The numerous GScholar hits show this is an accepted and heavily used scientific term. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is also utterly trivial, as has been noted in the previous comments here. Other widely-used but utterly trivial scientific terms include things like "secondary star" (i.e. the dimmer star in a binary system), "outer binary" (i.e. the top-level orbit in a hierarchical multiple star system). The observation of the fact that some binary stars have hotter secondaries is roughly as notable as the concept that if you roll a die twice, sometimes you get a larger number on the second throw. Icalanise (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's well-established that this phrase has been used in different sources with different meanings, I would say that it's quite a plausible search term. People might well look it up on Wikipedia to see what it actually means. Perhaps it needs to be a disambiguation page rather than a content page?—S Marshall T/C 19:40, 25 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Bestagno[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and no reliable third-party sources. Deskford (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing in the usual places and his article makes no claims to notability unless web-master of http://www.autoripersanremo.com/ is something (which I doubt since it is certainly not the official site for Festival della canzone italiana (if my Italian is any good) even if the article seems to imply that) --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:47, 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 speedy deleted. Shutting down this discussion because the nominated article has already been speedy deleted. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physician Practice Management[edit]

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

Advocacy, OR, and at least one paragraph is a copyvio from http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/1999journals/february99/practice.htm Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is from [4]. Tagged for speedy. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanked using {{subst:copyvio}}--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Refs are not V/RS. GregJackP (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an idea as to what refs are needed for inclusion? She's a motoring journalist and broadcaster; notable. Would a change from musician to broadcaster/journalist help? --Steve Radford (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there need to be verifiable and reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Self-published material is neither, nor or blogs, facebook, itunes, podcasts, twitter, myspace, youtube, etc. My check showed only 1 GNews hit, an article written by the subject. There are 2 GBooks hits, 1 where she was the editor and 1 with only a passing mention. 1 GScholar hit (the book she edited, above). No significant GHits that I could find. I believe that she would have to meet the criteria under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT, and I don't see how she does so. Good luck, GregJackP (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Zero10one said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikki_Gordon-Bloomfield Nikki is very important in the EV community and as such should remain. --Steve Radford (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Nikki's podcasts has been listed on Podcast Bunker's for its quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.155.6 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability here, although an interesting person Vartanza (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to Bristol Evening Post, and Divine Art music database have been added as well as a redirect from her pre-marital name.--Steve Radford (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I've also added citations in reference to fund-raising done for the transport podcast community and notable guests on her podcasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveradford (talk • contribs) 23:36, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Khetarpal[edit]

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

Vanity article that fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -non notable surgeon.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:28, 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Fields[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has published illustrations in several books and games which makes him notable. The article is moreover sourced by third-party material and does therefore not fail WP:BLP nor WP:N. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the guy's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started this one back in November, and I'll admit I didn't use any citations at the time (my bad). Fortunately, in March, the article was built up a fair bit and a source was added. Since this was done fairly recently, I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NRVE, WP:BURDEN. You have to provide the sources, not just allude to them possibly existing.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources. So obscure is this unnotable comic book artist that most of the hits I found were about different Fred Fieldses, most of whom have a better claim to notability than this one. Seriously, check out Google Books if you don't believe me. Reyk _YO! 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources (the one in the article is from a magazine his artwork appears in). Notability is demonstrated through coverage, which this person does not seem to have garnered. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added one - or at least the hint of one; I'll try to dig up more info on that regarding his appearance in a current exhibit in Chicago. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good find, however, since it's just one exhibit with his works amongst many others, it's probably not enough to pass the criteria offered by WP:ARTIST.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that just appears to be a flyer for an exhibition. It doesn't really tell us anything about this person. Quantpole (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Quantpole. Codf1977 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable claims of notability. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 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 per CSD G10. Closed because the article was deleted. N/A 0 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

OLFATIMA[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. This article was recreated after being speedy deleted, so the author would contest a prod. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely OR essay. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced negative BLP. Mo ainm~Talk 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also add a little Salt. Mo ainm~Talk 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G10. It's a clear negative unsourced BLP, so I've tagged it CSD:G10 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 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 no consensus. Brandon (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Knutson[edit]

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Part of a large walled garden. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not fail WP:BLP because it is sourced by third-party material. The publication of Knutson's artwork moreover makes him notable. Sources can probably be improved but there is no need to delete this article. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the person's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior Keep votes. I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prior keep votes are extremely weak. There is no evidence of notability within the article, nor is there anything in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N based on what's actually in the article not my confidence about what's out in cyberspace somewhere, somehow, some time. I see the article canvass squad have heard the call. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:N because of the lack of substantial, independent coverage. The claim that his work being notable makes him notable cannot be sustained because it requires us to deny WP:NOTINHERITED, as well as WP:AUTHOR. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NOTINHERITED makes clear that notablity can be "inherited" from notable work to creator; the major source of notability for creative artists/craftspersons is their creation of notable work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is just another nomination in a string of IDONTLIKEIT deletion noms by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:29, 25 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. –MuZemike 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDL Cambridge[edit]

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

Contested prod. This group fails WP:CHAIN, it's local activities are non-notable in encyclopedical terms and do not warrant a separate article. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also possible merge if there is some merit in that. Pretty much as nom., local activities don't need a separate article. DRosin (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local branch of extremist fringe group. Quoting one of the referenced articles (I dont really think that student newspapers count as reliable sources) "A grand total of six flag-waving EDL members"; SIX? There are substantially bigger family outings every single day of the week. There is nothing of value to merge to English Defence League. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both student papers are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. The group is notable as it has been commented about by these third party sources, the number of persons on the protest is totally irrelevant in this context apart from being a matter to comment on in the article. WP:CHAIN does not apply, this is not a franchise but an example of an local extreme political group, additionally it is notable in it's own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People4people (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The English Defense League itself might be notable (although I think it's a joke more than a real protest movement; their website says they "have a drink and then shout about the terrorists") but the Cambridge branch is very unlikely to be.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are just personal opinions, the notability guidelines only require the subject matter to be covered by a reliable third party source. Both the student papers meet the criteria of reliable sources under the guidelines.--People4people (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pit-yacker Peridon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local branches of national groups aren't notable - if this were the case we'd have articles on Labour Party (Cambridge), Liberal Democrats (Cardiff), Amnesty International (Birmingham) etc etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear that the activities of the group are sufficient to merit their own article. Hash789 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all, "[t]he Cambridge Division has been reported to have few members". —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Pit-yacker

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Total Drama series characters. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Hayden[edit]

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

Pretty minor film and voice actor, I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Fences&Windows 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail both the General Notability Guideline and the Entertainer guideline. Note that i still have to find a Reliable Source to assert the roles performed so Verifiability is also an issue. All i found is this from the Anime News Network users editable encyclopedia part, so not RS. --KrebMarkt 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability criteria. However, if some source come forward praising his film or television work, I'd be glad to consider a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, See my reasoning below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added says "Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008-2009) and "Total Drama Island (14 episodes, 2007-2009)". Isn't it a notable role if it appears that many times in a series? Two different notable series this person has been in, plus appearances in other things, some of which we don't know the extent of. Dream Focus 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Having what appears to be a minor voice part in an animated series is not in itself evidence of notability; it is coverage in secondary sources which establishes notability, not verifiability. The same goes for the appeal to "other things we don't know the extent of"; it is precisely because we do not know the extent of these "other things" that we cannot pretend to offer a reliable biography of the subject based on existing coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, Chris... his argument is not per WP:NOTINHERITED, it is per WP:ENT, and the meeting of WP:ENT requires WP:V of the roles without also demanding that the required WP:V must also meet WP:GNG. Policy here is not at odds with guideline... and I can understand his reasoning, as all the various subcriteria of WP:N are set in place to give editors other considerations toward notability in instances where the GNG is not met. Insisting that they somehow must, acts in contravention to those guidelines and consensus for their interpretation. None of the notability subcriteria at WP:BIO mandate also meeting the GNG... else why have any of the subcriteria at all? Thusly, an actor can be ascertained notable by meeting either GNG or ENT, but never need meet both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't correct. The GNG is our notability guideline. The purpose of the sub-guidelines is to imply that a subject passes the GNG because, even if they cannot be found directly, reliable sources are likely to exist somewhere in a copious and reliable enough manner due to the nature of the topic. It is possible to pass the GNG while failing a sub-guideline (for instance, minor actors who are famous for other reasons), but never the other way around, as sub-guidelines imply that the GNG is probably met in specialist publications that we just have to find. However, in this case it is not yet established that this subject passes WP:ENT because fourth billing as a voice actor is not necessarily a notable role. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris... but they are all our notability guidelines, and giving undue strength to one acts to diminish the reason, intent, and consensus for use of the others. Interestingly, I have been in many discussions where an individual easily met the GNG, but editors insisted that failure of meeting subsidary guideline equated to non-notability. It cannot be had both ways. The instructions at WP:BIO naturally start off with WP:BASIC and referring back the the GNG. But important to this discussion, is BIO's "Additional criteria" which states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" with then the sub-criteria of BIO following... ENT among them. Consider for instance, the instruction at WP:PROF that specifically acknowledges that secondary sources are not required... and the instructions at WP:ATH that allow notability simply for competing at a pro level in some sport... and the instructions at WP:ANYBIO that allows notability for the winning of awards. The meeting of the instructions of the supportive guidelines must always be WP:Verified in reliable sources, but that simple verification is not mandated to alwayd itself be significant coverage, however preferred, else the sub-criteria would be pointless. Yes, it is possible to pass GNG while failing subsidary notability guidelines (and that's why we look at the GNG first)... but the reverse is also possible per guideline, as notability guidelines are meant to be more a long leash and not a short tether. In summation, and with respects, it is possible to be found notable through meeting subsidary guidelines without always passing GNG, as that is why the supportive criteria were established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't follow that. Which notability criteria does he meet? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None at this time, but worth considering as a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO and WP:N; with no significant coverage in reliable sources impossible to comply properly with WP:BLP and Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror his IMDB role listings, which is all this article can do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Total Drama Island List of Total Drama series characters, the more notable of the series for which this individual has multiple appearances. I had thought at first to suggest a redirect to the Network Ten show Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist, where this individual has the his greatest number of appearances (28 of 28 episodes, 2008 through 2009), but TDI is the more notable of the two shows. So, after consideration, I have struck my delete above.~~, as a redirect will preserve the history until such time, if ever, that~~ IF his career grows and he receives coverage enough, he might merit a seperate article, but for now it is TOO SOON Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a game where one tries to preserve article revisions using whatever tricks are available. Either the subject meets the notability guidelines or it doesn't. If the subject later becomes notable then the article can be undeleted. Stop wasting people's time trying to redefine the deletion process on individual AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individual AFDs are where guideline application occurs, so addressing instances as they arise at AFD is proper. Wikipedia is chock full of redirects intended to send readers to where their search for information has context, as many times something non-notable is still a valid search term and a redirects are one of the guideline recommended options that serve the project. And no, I am not playing a game and do not think civil discussion of guideline is either a "trick" or a timewaster. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was on every episode of a notable show, as one of the five main characters. Dex Hamilton: Alien Entomologist (26 episodes, 2008–2009) (TV) As a voice actor he was on Total Drama Island as Noah, one of the main characters, for (14 episodes, 2007–2009) (TV) and then did the voice of Noah for the follow up show Total Drama World Tour. Looks like he was a significant part of these notable shows. Dream Focus 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total Drama World Tour appears to feature a significant number of voice actors. The assertion that the subject played a significant part on the show requires rather more evidence than an assertion of fact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 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. Speedy keep, nominator withdrew.

Buquebus[edit]

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

This company does not appear to be notable per the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. —ErikHaugen (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had tagged with for speedy deletion per a7, but someone felt that operating a ferry service indicated importance/significance. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News and Books searches linked above find thousands of reliable sources demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a major international public transportation provider, by far the largest operator between Argentina and Uruguay. It's an instantly familiar name for anyone from either of those countries and I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands of mentions in South American media.Minnowtaur (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Thanks for the input, not sure how I missed all that. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:21, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eerievale[edit]

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

As hinted in the article itself, Eerievale is only a homebrew video game, and one which has not even been completed yet. The article uses only the official website for the game as a source, indicating that no independent publications are even aware of the game's existence. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG (no reliable third party sources [5]) and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:46, 19 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) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage from reliable publications; weak claim of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 10:05, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharam Ulus[edit]

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

Actually, the stated reference is false (i have got both Russian and Tatar language Tatar encyclopaedia editions). The article is a hoax, the subject was never mentioned in any historical literature. Interestingly, that it name means State of Haram in Tatar, unlikely that such state existed in the Middle Age Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I, too, was unable to even verify this. In the unlikely event that sources surface later, the article can always be undeleted and sourced accordingly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 18, 2010; 20:36 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Sabres (American football)[edit]

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

Non-notable university American Football team. University sports teams in the UK are rarely notable within their own institution, never mind further afield. This team, which participates in what is a niche interest sport in the UK, does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to the rule. A quick search on google returns little beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of sources that are reliable and independent it is unlikely that the article could be referenced. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG: like all the other British university American football teams that have been nominated and deleted recently, this team does not appear to be one of those rare exceptions to the general rule that British university sports teams are not notable. Pfainuk talk 21:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very rare for a Uni sports team in Britain to be known *within* their campus, never mind off it. This isn't one of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also falls foul of WP:PUFF and WP:COI. Eliteimp (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. Nuttah (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources given--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 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. Rough consensus seems to favor deletion more than anything else here. –MuZemike 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Winter storms of 2004–2007[edit]

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

The article is not complete, not well sourced, does not pass WP:N Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time to develope more?--82.11.103.72 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article exceeded 100 KB, and it appears to be in the midst of a WP:SPLIT. Also, the original article appears to be well sourced. At this point, I say give it more time to develop. Akerans (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was my plan to do so, User:Akerans--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then place {{underconstruction}} on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 June 2010

~~Tentative Keep~~ this appears to be part of a wider set of articles, if it is brought up to speed then seems very much an encyclopaedic page. On the other hand the whole series needs a lot more work (copyediting, reworking etc.). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Maybe Delete/Merge any valuable content. I just tried to improve areas of the article. While I think the subject has merit there are issues for what storms to include. There is, currently, no clear principle as to what has been included. A large number of the references appear to consist of simply photographs of storms; which are useful but don't really assert any notability (for example the 2004 Chad storms occur around 100 days every year, and there is nothing particularly big or "impressive" I can find for that year). Clearly storms in which people die (of which there are a few) may have notability. But it strikes me they may be better served as sections on other pages (such as those for the region they affect). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created with good intentions, but it fails WP:IINFO as indiscriminate. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, WP:IINFO doesn't seem to cover this particular article (unless it counts as statistics, which I am not convinced it does) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The writer has redirected and merged it back to the old articl, which was better over all in my veiw.--81.100.126.134 (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected I did, since it was not big enough to stand on it's own. See- Global storm activity of 2005-2007.

--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I undid the redirect, since the AFD comment on the previous version indicated that it should not have been removed etc. (i.e. I think the redirect was premature.). I got here by way of the {{under construction}} tag on its talk page (via Category:Pages actively undergoing construction), which I have removed. Hope I did the right thing there. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an archetypal example of WP:IINFO - an arbitrary collection of weather events with no supporting sources which collect or categorise them in this way. It's not clear how we would generalise this without getting into OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global storm activity of 2005-2007, which it aparenty shared most of the content with.--81.100.116.232 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM ADMIN The article should not be redirected whilst this AfD debate is in progress. Such actions should only be performed once the AfD discussion closes, and if that is the consensus as determined by the editor who closes the AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dust storm here, a rain storm there...is there a point to this article? It looks like Weather Channel filler. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boareing It's too Boareing!--86.16.8.204 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge in to 'Global storm activity of 2005-2007'.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The authors seem to believe that there is something special about these random weather reports. Wikipedia is not a collection of random news reports, and it should not be a collection of random weather events either. Do meteorologists state in reliable sources that there was something special about the 3 year period the article covers? Is the 3 year collection of weather reports evidence for or against climate change, for instance? This complaint would be satisfied by breaking it out into "Severe storms of 2004, Severe storms of 2005", etc. I do not see the point in breaking it into "Winter Storms" and "Nonwinter Storms." Just go by month. In August it is hot in Northern Hemisphere winter and cold in Southern Hemisphere . Some storms are notable enough for their own articles, but many of these are clearly not. It looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. At the same time a list is preferable to separate articles about "a dust storm which killed one man" or articles about random little storms of different types in different places. Edison (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's covered on other pages, like the tornado page.--82.11.82.114 (talk) 13:38, 25 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Ellen Brown[edit]

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only independent source given is The Birmingham News. I couldn't find the cited article from 2004, but did get 2 hits from 2008, however coverage was trivial, not significant.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Claritas § 17:16, 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InVNT[edit]

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

Non notable company - article written by member of staff from inVNT's PR Company. The author has provided a number of Sources backing up the claim of notability (see talk page) listed below :

"Dialing Up the Event Channel" - Not about inVNT - some mentions and quotes.
"inVNT's Event at its New Office" - Is about inVNT and the office warming party they hosted, and that they got a good deal on the rent - not sure that makes them notable.
"PSS World Medical - About PSS World Medical Forges -Not inVNT - they do get some mentions and quotes.
"Try a Twitter Q&A" - One mention - that inVNT know how to set up a computer.
"Society for Human Resource Management Signs Multi-Year Event Contract with inVNT" - Has the feel of a press release. (has "about XYZ Inc" section and contact details at the end)
"Optimism Blooms at Springtime Expo" - About the ASAE & The Center's Springtime Expo - some description of a presentation by inVNT staff, but it is no means the topic of the article.
"inVNT defies Economy to Post 250% Growth in 2009" - Has the feel of a press release. (has "about XYZ Inc" section and contact details at the end)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP There is also a AfD on the founder Scott Cullather Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Cullather. Codf1977 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I loathe companies who spam Wikipedia like this. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete failure to assert any notability --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7&G11 per nom. —ΩpenTheWindows™ 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. WP:CORP, looks like vanispamcruftisement to me. Claritas § 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage online, half of a two-page WP:Walled garden of non-notability. Empty Buffer (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Hash789 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Martinière[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N and WP:NOT a personal resume hosting website. The subject severely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the subject seems to have won a Hugo Award, which is pretty prestigious. Seems relatively notable & I found a few citations. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My thoughts are that the WP:BLP should have been the subject of at least two pieces of non-trivial coverage provided by a reliable third party source. Do you find any evidence of that? (Or at least one?) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's cool - I wasn't sure if that was worth notability or not (not been around for a while). Actually now i think about it probably not. I cited it in the article anyway in case it sways anyone :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Hugo nominations, plus a win, plus numerous other awards, is not considered "significant critical attention"? News to me. --GrifterMage (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugo Award winner and Emmy award nominee. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hugo Award winner. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, this is nowhere near a "speedy keep". Its more like a slow delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner and 4-time nominee of the Hugo award, the highest honor in speculative fiction and art. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with those above me, although the article could use more citations. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as he's won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, and a pile of other awards listed here. He is absolutely notable. The nominator obviously didn't even bother to review the articles s/he nominated (see here). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say absolutely about the subject of this article is that non-trivial coverage from independent reliable third party publications is explicitly lacking. One would think that if winning a Hugo award somehow makes someone inherently notable, they would have some sort of coverage to follow and validate that suggestion. I'm not seeing it, are you? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would think you had read the guidelines and policies you were quoting as foundation for these noms. Being an award winner of one or more notable awards qualifies anyone for notability. And it's very likely that all of these award-winning artists have been covered in one or more magazine and newspaper articles. You can verify the winning of the awards using multiple sites (and many of them are already verified in the articles). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with what I'm quoting, and I feel I'm being fair and consistent here in my readings of WP:BLP and other relevant policies/guidelines. This person may have won an award, but it doesn't seem they've received any kind of substantial or non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point and I'll withdraw this nomination straightaway. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BLP is not an article inclusion policy; it only applies to sourcing of information within articles about living people, not whether an article should exist. That's what WP:N is about. This discussion is about whether the article should exist here or not, so let's stick to the relevant policies, okay? Winning multiple notable awards more than qualifies the individual as notable due to his work receiving "significant critical attention" and the artist being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (especially the Hugo Award and the Chesley Award, which are the top awards in his field). The information can be sourced due to the high profile of the awards. I'll see what I can do to add more sources (though the Hugo already has multiple sources). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, any Hugo winner is ipso facto notable. Rate the article as Stub- or Start-class if you think it's lacking sources. —WWoods (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple significant awards and nominations, cited in the article, sufficient to meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:31, 25 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. The reasons for deletions seem more policy-based than the reasons for retention here. –MuZemike 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GiftZip.com[edit]

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

seems to be a promotional article, unsure how it meets the criteria in WP:ORG or WP:WEB. Elevating for discussion. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is directly affiliated with the suject, as described in GiftZip.com:

Maashatra11 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since this is essentially SPAM, I wouldn't mind if it were done in a speedy-like fashion. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is "essentially SPAM". I am not a representative of this company and this article has been up for over a year. Additionally, no one seems to be offering constructive tips on how to improve it. Also, as I tried to illustrate in my last post, the website does not sell a product or service. I believe that if you referred to the articles referenced in said article, that you would be able to see the notability of this company in Michigan's wavering, fleeting economy. GiftZip.com is a house name in Michigan. GiftZip.com was just named one of 10 Hot Startups, along side Foursquare which seems to have easily kept its stop on Wikipedia, despite the fact Foursquare has not been along as long.

Malloryloren (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per WP:CORP - "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation" is not sufficient, and no real coverage outside business magazines etc. Claritas § 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur has Google Page Rank of 7. It is not a limited interest or limited circulation publication, it receives nearly as much traffic as ABCnews + MSNBC's websites. 76.226.177.13 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - as per nom and Claritas Codf1977 (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor Usagi Yojimbo characters. Brandon (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mogura ninja[edit]

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

Mole ninjas in a comic book which have not received enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:N. Claritas § 16:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I moled it over, and the nom is correct. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor Usagi Yojimbo characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:37, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Mendoza[edit]

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

Non-notable local businessperson MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of references - the author has worked hard on this article - but the subject does not qualify as notable IMO. The subject has received a few minor awards (one from the local Business Improvement District, plus one out of many "Readers Choice Awards" from the neighborhood paper). She has been quoted in some articles from Reliable Sources, but they are a one-paragraph quote - they are not ABOUT her. She has done local philanthropy work. All in all she sounds like a good person and a contributor to her community, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but this subject is not notable enough. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how appropriate it is for me to comment, since I wrote the article, but the person, according to articles, has been a merchant in Ocean Beach for 20 years and has been given awards and recognition for the town getting that designation of antiques district. Perhaps that isn't highlighted enough in the article? The Daily Transcript, the legal newspaper of record in San Diego, described her as a pioneer in establishing an antiques district in San Diego. It is a destination, whereas two decades ago it wasn't. Perhaps it wasn't made clear enough in the article. For that, according to the articles, she has been recognized by the California State Legislature, the Small Business Administration of San Diego, the merchants association, local newspapers and a TV station. I put most of those things in the article, but they're spread out. I will work on the article to improve it and include more references to show notability, per Wiki quality and notability standards. Thanks very much. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Successful businesswoman of note to her community, not notable enough outside it. Sometimes hundreds of people per day are given recognition by the state legislature.Minnowtaur (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am adding to the article & including more than just a businesswoman of note. Her volunteerism is lengthy. I only included some of it, but there's a lot out there.AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive sourcing demonstrates that the subject clearly meets the GNG. The discussion here seems to focus on whether she should be notable, which is not really among the deletion criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking through the numerous cites, independent coverage is trivial or purely local. Nothing of significance to pass WP:GNG.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and merits for Keep - I found and have added, since the nomination, verifiable and reliable sources for stories where she is either the only one quoted or featured in the article, since MelanieN stated that was needed when she nominated the article for deletion. Also, Re: 70.80.234.196's reason for "delete," because the sources are "trivial" and "purely local," while that's not a bad thing, it's not exactly accurate. The Daily Transcript, San DIego Union-Tribune, San Diego Magazine, & San Diego News are hardly trivial or purely local (the San Diego Union-Tribune is considered a national newspaper, & San DIego News -- with a bunch of area papers -- is regional), especially being written up in publications that cover the 2nd largest city in the state of California & the 9th largest in the nation (according to Wikipedia). She was included in the Christian Science Monitor as well, also cited in the article, and that too is a national newspaper. Thanks in advance for your time. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's take a closer look at those sources. From the San Diego Union-Tribune, two cites: the first is something written by her sister (not independent coverage) about her surgeon who just happened to save her life. The second one "Garden variety: Tours celebrates county's bounty" has no mention of Cordelia Mendoza. So coverage from the San Diego Union-Tribune does not establish notability. San Diego Magazine: first cite, no direct coverage (no mention of her), the second (vol 48, pg 68), trivial coverage. From the Daily Transcript: it's hard to say if the award is notable and/or if this is a press release, anyway, per WP:ANYBIO the award is a local business award and not well-known. San Diego News offers routine coverage of local community events, she's mentioned in your basic run-of-the-mill community fundraisers. The coverage by The Christian Science Monitor, finally, is, again, nothing more than a trivial mention, nothing of depth. So, in my view, this appears to be a case of puffery.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- To clarify: The 1st citation of an op-ed piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune was to cite the reference to the Heart Fund Association and volunteerism; the 1st reference of San Diego Magazine wasn't in reference to the subject; it was included as a citation for the reference of Ocean Beach and "Antiques row" as a tourist shopping destination. Citations by other newspapers quoting her is that she appears to be a source for newspapers when they're looking for someone to quote. As for the Daily Transcript, they had a blurb about her and others who were given annual awards, not in a press release but in the newspaper. There is an accumulation of awards at different levels, as well as volunteerism not just locally for a main street organization, but for a nationally known hospital and a national animal group, and not a flash in the pan but on a sustained level of many years. I guess I'm confused how by writing a NPOV article with citations and sources in a factual way can now be referred to as "puffery." AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW please note that there is no such newspaper as "San Diego News". The website "sdnews.com" is for the San Diego Newspaper Group, which publishes several free weekly community papers, including the Peninsula Beacon which covers Ocean Beach. Citations in this article to "sdnews" are actually to the Beacon. I would not consider the Beacon a "reliable source" - it uses freelancer reporters as well as staff writers, and its editorial standards are not high. In addition, it is purely local; it just serves the Point Loma and Ocean Beach neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, San Diego Community News Group is SDNews.com online, which purchased the Beacon in 1990, and renamed it the Peninsula Beacon because it covers both Point Loma and Ocean Beach and outlying communities in the area. According to the Library of Congress' listing, the Beacon published from 1983 until 1990 when SD Community News Group purchased it. I'll make a change in the article to reflect the actual name of the newspaper rather than the name of the paper's online site. Thanks for pointing that out. As for freelancers as opposed to staff writers, big and small newspapers and magazines throughout history have called upon the reporting of both freelancers and staff writers to flesh out their news coverage. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: 2 out of 5 of the references -- used as reliable sources -- in the Bennie Edens Wikipedia article were from the Peninsula Beacon. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. for same reasons provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Bidnessman (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems more WP:SPAMmy than anything else. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The citations in the article were included as legitimate, good-faith additions of independent sources meant to verify the article's content. Thanks. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no significant rewards. Claritas § 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Nom and Student7 Codf1977 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I have improved considerably on the article since the nomination, backing up content with citations showing she's volunteered on a sustained basis for nationally recognized nonprofits, not just at local level, plus I just found & added two more reliable sources -- both from the San Diego Union-Tribune -- one from 2009 which quotes Mendoza at the top of the article, backs up the article's content with the statement that she & her husband had 1st antique mall in Ocean Beach & refers to OB as an antiques district; and the other, from 1994, added as an external reference about collecting, which quotes Mendoza. Thank you. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:04, 25 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) 03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM (Project Management Software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software product lacking GHIts of substance and with only PR GNEWS. Tried to merge with ARES Corporation per WP:PRODUCT, but article author insists merge is not supportable. ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this software has adequate notability:

Company Profile on Business Week -

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4850491

Use of PRISM by NASA -

http://pmchallenge.gsfc.nasa.gov/Docs/2006attendee-presentations/2006presentationsCD-attendee/Sami.Jaroudi.pdf

Reference from International Cost Engineering Council (ICEC) -

http://www.icoste.org/publ.htm

Multiple Blogs/Review -

http://onlysoftwareblog.com/?p=4813

http://www.constructionsoftwarereview.com/learning_center/user_reviews/prism/prism-construction-management-software-review-suncor-energy-2-2

Multiple PR Releases -

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4224621

http://research.tdameritrade.com/public/markets/news/story.asp?docKey=100-168p1092-1&clauses=

http://www.intergraph.com/products/ppm/smartplant/materials/PRISM_Project_Manager.aspx

If additional examples of Notability are required, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please read WP:RS. None of these meet the criteria for reliable sources. [6] is a profile of the company, [7] is only a one line listing of the company, [8] was written by someone at Ares - this is hardly independent or meets the criteria to support notability, and blogs and press release do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Notability has not been established per Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates that the software is used by NASA, that alone should make it notable. Are you aware that NASA hires contractors? Bsanders246 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. 2 says you, says two 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but was unable to find anywhere in independent sources that independent sources had to meet the criteria included in that article. Additionally, many of my links above qualify as a news source. I don't see any indication that a press release changes the fact. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.losalamos.com/pmi/archives/past%20meetings/past%20meetings%20archive%2005.htm - Another credible source. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprinted press-releases, regardless of where they're published, do not qualify as news sources. Press-releases are by definition released by the company's PR or advertising department and therefore are not independent. 2 says you, says two 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link me to a wikipedia guideline/article stating such? Thanks Bsanders246 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(from WP:GNG) "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." 2 says you, says two 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link. I feel like i've already made a valid arguement for notability and i'll let others discuss for the remainder of this AFD. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It would help if you could provide support by using Wikipedia guidelines to support your assertion that it is a notable product. There has been plenty of discussion in support of it not being a notable product using Wikipedia guidelines. You really need to address this contrary arguments in order for the article to remain. ttonyb (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of discussion between 2, you, and I. It seems that you and 2 work together on a lot of project edits, so I would assume you have a similar thought process. Every Wikipedia Guideline states that it is a guide, not a set of rules, and that there are expections to the guidelines. So, instead of arguing that point with you, I'll wait for 3rd parties to get involved. Google/Gnews was not meant to be a "notability checker" by Wikipedia, although you use it as such. This product and company have been around for a while and i'm sure I'll be able to find notable sources in non-web format. Using Google's Book search for "prism project management", I've already been able to find ample references to PRISM in published texts. I'm sure they'll fit into WP "notability" requirements. Bsanders246 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here you go: http://books.google.com/books?id=jygAEZIoqUsC&pg=PA346&dq=prism+project+management&hl=en&ei=u8cbTNaOGYP88AbWp5iyDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prism%20project%20management&f=false. I think PRISM having it's own section in a Project Management book is notable enough for WP's notability standerds.Bsanders246 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Feel free to add it to the article. ttonyb (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already did. I'll look for a few more to add to the article in place of previous references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsanders246 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited do not meet WP criteria as reliable sources. The Business Week ref is a mere directory listing that barely mentions the product; the NASA ref appears to be material prepared by ARES and therefore a primary source (not reliable); the ICEC link is a mere listing of products and in no way indicates notability; and the rest of the links are blogs and press releases, which are not considered valid reliable sources. This article also appears to primarily promote the product, which is specifically prohibited. I strongly suspect that the original author has some sort of connection with the product and/or company, which runs afoul of conflict of interest policies. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails wp:GNG and wp:RS. The book mentioned above contains an outline of the software's capabilities, but no critique or analysis. The other sources are press releases or Primary sources. Dethlock99 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for critique or analysis for a source to be considered notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is ironic that many of the above references are considered notable for many other articles, I'll still make the attempt to find references that meet the official notability requirement. Per WP:FAILN, I am requesting additional time to find notable references.Bsanders246 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Such sources do not not denote notability. They may be used in conjunction with other reliable sources. But so far, none of your sources qualify as reliable. This AfD usually lasts five days, so your clock is running. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kbproc.com/documents/SevenSuggestions.pdf - Independent Case Study using PRISM. This should be considered notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. How independent it is isn't quite clear. I'm not sure that a case study qualifies as independent coverage. By the way, you obviously have some soft of connection to this subject. What is your connection? Do you work for Ares? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising, essentially devoted to extolling the virtues of the product. Back-office software for "project management" is a crowded field, and there's no showing that this particular product has historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 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. –MuZemike 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Races[edit]

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

Wikipedia game which has no significant coverage in reliable sources. I rejected a PROD because the justification was based on WP:MADEUP, because from looking at the internet, there are plenty of blogs and other unreliable sources which document it. Claritas § 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Wikipedia:Wikirace. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Etrigan (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. What the hell? Why would anyone suggest a redirect from mainspace for this? Its total garbage. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable - some GHits, but it seems to be all in the blogosphere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically the same game we have deleted before under 30 other names, with a 31st under discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki'd. See this list on my user page for details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Hoover[edit]

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

Delete. Supposedly this person is most famous for designing a "hotly desired" MTG card, yet I cannot find any sort of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications detailing that fact. Interestingly, this was nominated for deletion back in 2007 and survived. I believe that our policies regarding WP:BLP articles have greatly improved since then and don't think this meets our current definition of a notable biography in terms of inclusion due to the outright lack of coverage this subject has received (or failed to). JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Collectible card gaming magazines certainly do not meet WP:RS, and are also not necessarily independent of the subject. Claritas § 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Collectible card gaming magazines are certainly reliable sources as they are the specialist journals which cover the art and other aspects of this major genre. This just seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Colonel Warden, and wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of sources could be used for all the other Magic artist articles nominated for AFD recently; pity I don't have any myself. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion hasn't changed from last time. Mild keep. DS (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same with DS and Colonel Warden, my opinion is unchanged from 2007. Keep. Nathan^T 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you? Did you change your name? I see no "Nathan" commenting during the 2007 discussion and the closing administrator should have a chance to evaluate your rationale if your opinion has not changed. Colonel Warden isn't doing you any favors either, as the subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party outlets. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as per nom and Claritas Codf1977 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Colonel Warden said it best above. Hooper (talk) 14:28, 25 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) 03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SafeStick[edit]

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

This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. This is nominated alongside another article created via this job, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster. Them From Space 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just to be safe. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Goes completely against Wikipedia policies as well as the spirit of it. Paying people to spam Wikipedia is just not on.
I still believe, that the product which is claimed (by such a reliable source as eWeek magazine) to outperform its competitors (which have articles in Wikipedia) has both the right and the need to be presented here, no metter what the motivation of the main contributor is. User: pozytyv (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (Kyiv time)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, Promotional intent is obvious: a secure USB flash drive that protects data with hardware encryption and mandatory password security.... Article is nothing more than a features list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed with all points made. Etrigan (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:46, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megafoo[edit]

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

Unremarkable website, an Alexa rank of 31,304 is not an assertion of notability. No independent, non-trivial sources, no hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alexa rank was not intended as an assertion of notability, merely as a factual statement regarding the website.

I contest your belief that this article does not meet Notability standards. Due to the recent release of this software, it would be difficult to find credible sources discussing the software. So, a lack of credible sources does not mean the subject lacks Notability, that is causation. Furthermore, due to the nature of Search Engine Optimization and Technology in general, a product/idea/method can become significant and important in said realm very quickly. Credible sources often take months/years to write about new innovations, but that does not make the product/idea/method lack Notability until the credible sources write on the subject. Search engine results page is still lacking any information on SERP Tracking, although it has been widely used for years. It was in my research on the subject that I discovered multiple software for SERP Tracking with very distinct and important differences. Before addding this section, I felt it was needed to address these variations in a wikipedia format first. Finally, I think that the controversy section in this article agrees with my statement Notability in Wikipedia.Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia articles are about subjects that are already proven notable, not subjects that may become notable at a later time, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When there are a lack of non-trivial, secondary sources but future notability is a distinct possibility, normally the article is deleted until coverage becomes available or if appropriate, rolled into a bigger-picture, but already notable topic. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a checkuser? This person seem's to know a lot about wikipedia guidelines without making a single contribution.Bsanders246 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was logged out, sorry. Also, IP addresses are usually dynamically applied, and change every few days, or sometimes several times a day, please assume good faith. 2 says you, says two 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the WP guideline. I'm also aware of the use of sock puppets on WP, which is why I requested a checkuser. It was not intended to be accusatory or confrontational. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the valid reasons outlined by the nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a website with no particular claim to encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website, article is primarily to promote the site. Original author has a history of posting promotional articles, all of which are under AfD presently. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a great piece of SEO software and attempt to make an article on it? I haven't made any articles on wikipedia before, so i'm still trying to learn what is allowed and what isn't. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of trying to promote things. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the text of your articles are promotional in nature. Perhaps you should read this page and this page before you create any new articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:11, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlockMaster[edit]

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

This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources. This is nominated alongside another article created via this job, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick. Them From Space 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and probably salt just to be sure. The references provided are all to minor trade publications with small audiences and do not establish any historical, technical, or cultural significance. And if somebody got paid for this, it's safe to assume that's the best they could come up with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Goes completely against Wikipedia policies as well as the spirit of it. Paying people to spam Wikipedia is just not on. Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe, that the company which product is claimed (by such a reliable source as eWeek magazine) to outperform its competitors (which have articles in Wikipedia) has both the right and the need to be presented here, no metter what the motivation of the main contributor is. User: pozytyv (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2010 (Kyiv time)
Delete per nom. Etrigan (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Although I would see nothing wrong with someone paying for non-spam articles following Wikipedia policy.) Tomas e (talk) 17:30, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vizelia[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion for an article on a software house, translated form the French wiki. While my French is limited, it seems that the actual references do not add up to meeting WP:CORP, so brought here for wider discussion. Tikiwont (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 15:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's some coverage in French - [9], entry in the European technology atlas - [10], but not really enough significant coverage to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Claritas § 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam: leader in Building Information Modeling and Preventive maintenance... Oonh, it's a leader we are now, is it? And they made a strategic move! No showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. - 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above. Etrigan (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybuddy. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tone of the article make it not encyclopedic. Pxtreme75 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet WP:BLP1E. –MuZemike 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Haywood[edit]

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

One event notability or similar one issue notability, content is resulting in an attack article on a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 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." There are reliable sources underlying the article, but they all discuss him only in the context of his secondary connection to a news event. Accordingly, he does not clear the hurdle of notability. Couple that with some tone issues, and the article is unfit for an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Although I have nominated the BLP I have since then removed some content that I consider to be the worst of the violations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For editors wishing to see the pre-deletion text, here is the revision immediately prior to AfD nomination and aforementioned edits by Off2riorob. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I am struggling mightily to WP:AGF about this AfD nomination: one can more convincingly assert that WP:BLP1E applies when one has deleted material in a way that leaves only 1E in the article. In its earlier incarnation, the article makes it clear that there is more to his claim for notability than one now sees there. Whether it's enough for WP:GNG is of course still a matter of judgement, but again there might be more to this one than meets the eye at first glance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint against me please report it at the correct location. I will not replace the content I have removed, I mentioned it for editors information as what I removed was imo according to policy , in need of removal. If User Nomoskedasticity wants to take responsibility for the content, please feel free to replace it. I also request that you do not disrupt this AFD with what has all the appearance of WP:STALKING my edits after a separate uninvolved discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via WP:BLPN. I'm confident my thoughts will be considered on their merits, nothing more. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject looks notable and material appears to be reliably sourced. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little substantial content is included to an article on the attack. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a primarily negative BLP. Sourced or not, he's portrayed as a criminal ("escape"), but has not been convicted of any crime. He's clearly not notable as a criminal, evangelist, or executive coach. He's just a regular guy who came under scrutiny due to his own bad luck and seems to fail WP:WIALPI. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jclemens. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic BLP1E, getting your wireless router hijacked does not make you notable. His 'controversies' as a pastor that are now removed were not reliably sourced. By the way, there seems to be a vendetta against this guy judging from commons:Category:Kenneth Haywood Fences&Windows 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E as made by Off2riorob Codf1977 (talk) 10:02, 25 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. –MuZemike 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism and primitivism[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Classic POV fork created by an editor who was having trouble getting material about Objectivist views on Arabs and Native Americans (which the editor groups together as "primitivism") included in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. There was some consensus on the talk page of that article that the limited secondary source coverage on these topics might warrant a paragraph or so, but one editor wanted a much more expansive treatment, so he created a separate article for it. The subject matter lacks sufficient notability for an independent article, as there is very little secondary source coverage. Instead the article has been cobbled together using a synthesis of primary sources (quotes from recordings of Rand and op-eds from the Ayn Rand Institute) and a few passing mentions of related items in secondary sources (not substantial coverage). There is only one truly relevant secondary source in the article (a paragraph from a recent bio of Rand), which is what could be as the basis for appropriately weighted coverage in either Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Ayn Rand, but it is not enough to justify an article. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by creator with Strong Keep.

[1] I believe the article clearly shows that there is enough coverage to merit its own article. The article has only existed for 12 hours, and it already has more refs (13) than half of Wikipedia’s articles. More importantly, the references are from reliable first hand sourcing, and none are even from critics of Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Moreover, note how the ACCURACY of the documented quotes are not in question or disputed, it's a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Additionally, to those who would question such specificity, see Objectivism and homosexuality, which also relies on primary sourcing as precedent for the article.

[2] I dispute that it is a POV fork. The only Point Of View being put forth are the views of Ayn Rand, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives), Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir), Mimi Reisel Gladstein author of The New Ayn Rand Companion and Jennifer Burns author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right - on the issue of primitivism as it relates to Native Americans and Arabs. I am NOT relying on the editorial views of critics (as you would usually find in a real pov fork) - these are the stated views of Objectivists themselves.

[3] I also dispute the characterization that I am on a sole crusade to insert this material, as myself and 3 other editors on the Objectivism page have argued for its inclusion ---> see long discussion. However, each time we are met with the WP:TENDentious attempts at WP:Ownership by User:Karbinski to protect his self-proclaimed "intellectual hero" from any potentially unflattering material.

[4] I believe this to possibly be a case of WP:Censorship by Objectivist editors who themselves don't agree with Rand's stance and thus would like to avoid and erase any mention of the matter by Rand and all of her fellow institutes. Since they as Objectivists don't think this way, they feel that it is inaccurate to attribute these views to Objectivism (which they believe they subscribe to). But you don't get to cherry pick Rand's and her institutes views to your own liking.

[5] If there wasn't enough coverage to merit an article, then I would not have been able to so easily create one with so many references to first hand sources. Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-argued AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Either. Either keep this article, or delete Objectivism and Homosexuality along with it. --Karbinski (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability and Verifiability have to be the standard. Although the article's premesis seem sound, they are none-the-less not supported by reliable secondary sources. --Karbinski (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This claim of "lacking secondary sources" is not only dubious (they are there) but intellectually dishonest in relation to many of the other Objectivist-related articles. See the footnotes for Objectivist theory of value (13 of the 15 are Rand herself), Objectivism and homosexuality (all 13 refs are first hand sources by Objectivists) etc. Who better to cite on Objectivism's view than actual Objectivists and Rand herself? If I formed an article filled with "interpretation" and "critiques" by non-Objectivists on the material, then I am sure that the complaint would be that they are taking the words out of context or applying their own pov and editorial slant. This issue and these facts will not simply go away by trying to prevent them from being on Wiki (note how nobody here doubts the accuracy of the claims made in the article which is foolproof per the sources). Since there are so many sources by Rand and her institutes on the matter, the issue will continue to be brought up (as it was this month by the user Collector555 ---> shown here on Rand’s main page) until it is sufficiently dealt with. Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the article as you originally wrote it (I believe that is how it stands currently). But the "what about these" defense isn't a defense - those articles should be re-considered. --Karbinski (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karbinski, if you "like it", then why are you voting to have it deleted? Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is widely viewed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I personally would not shed a tear if both of the articles you mention were deleted, although either could probably be rewritten with secondary sources and have more relevant sources than what can be provided for Objectivism and primitivism. You seem to think that cobbling together primary sources is a good basis for an article, but it is not. Editorial synthesis of material to create a topic that isn't discussed in secondary sources is against Wikipedia policy. You have a primary sources that express various views about Native Americans or Arabs, which you have combined into a topic about the Objectivist view of "primitivism" that is not discussed in any secondary source. You have a couple of secondary sources that mention Rand's views on Native Americans and Arabs, and one other that quotes an ARI op-ed about Native Americans without mentioning Arabs or Objectivism. None of these use the term 'primitivism'. One secondary source briefly says that Rand's fiction is not primitivist but doesn't associate this with her views on Native Americans or Arabs. That these bits and pieces can be pulled together into an Objectivist view of primitivism is an interesting and perhaps true idea that would make a good article for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, but since no secondary source has promulgated that association, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RL, you claim "none of these use the term primitivism" which is patently false. I suggest using the ctrl + F option on the article, and searching for "primitiv" realizing that sometimes they use "primitivism", other times "primitive" or "primitivist". The term is utilized in attributed quotes 9 times with 6 other mentions in the article not in direct quotes. Moreover, since the article is obviously not a finished product, despite the desire to strangle the proverbial baby in its crib (and delete an article not even 24 hours old), I have added a section on Rousseauian romanticism of primitive life and how Objectivism states it became the foundation for the 1960's counterculture and New Left (There is also a whole book by Rand i.e. Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution that looks at this issue). This is not solely about Native Americans and Arabs, although those are two notable instances where Rand & her institutes have repeatedly spoken about a specific group as an example. Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the "none" in my comment referred to the secondary sources. You have relevant primary source material to work with, and if Wikipedia published original essays based on primary sources, you'd be set. But unfortunately that isn't what we are supposed to be doing. --RL0919 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a POV fork, without reliable third party sources. TFD (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the level of coverage in secondary sources doesn't rise to the level of notability. The essays available online that are cited the most don't support the point being made as well as they should (e.g., the first condemns primitivism and claims that Rand stands for modernity, but does not claim that Rand condemned primitivism; another claims it in a single sentence). Of course, there might be a serious problem with the Objectivism article if this material is excluded altogether (sources do exist), but a separate article is not the way to deal with it. Contrary to what some of the delete votes above say, there are reliable secondary sources, just not enough for an independent article. Perhaps the author should seek a third opinion regarding the original article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:37, 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 Sarah 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gerard Kennedy[edit]

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

This is an article about a Dr. Who fan. The assertion for notability is that he is an important figure in Australian Dr. Who fandom and has won Double Gammas which are awards for excellence in Australian Dr. Who fandom. There is no significat coverage in reliable sources, and the award is not a major award. There is some claim for sources at Talk:Paul Gerard Kennedy but they are unconvincing. Whpq (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "sources" are extremely brief mentions in a couple of National Library data entries, and a couple of fansites. So fails WP:BIO. Besides that, the article also appears to be an autobiography, and the significant contributor (and asserter of notability) the subject.. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources. The only "citation" on this article is in fact a wikilink to the Double Gammas, a fan club, which also has no reliable sources (the Australian Science Fiction Bullsheet (groan) might come close if the link weren't dead, but I still doubt it). I'd say delete both of them.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note the COI of the main contributor, User:Chewy6202. The article subject's nickname is apparently Chewy.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:01, 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. –MuZemike 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our lady of muswell[edit]

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

Notability issues; unreferenced; prod declined for no reason. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mild WP:ADVERT, no assertion of importance or significance, no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability on Google, content is directory information likely to go out of date quickly. No objection to listing this in places of worship in Muswell Hill should anyone want to write that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there seems to be some history here: there's an ancient pilgrimage site,[11] but that seems to be a different church. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability as per nom and Radagast. Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 25 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 as I was creating this nom. Rightfully so. — Timneu22 · talk 14:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea joyce santos[edit]

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

CSD doesn't apply because there is an awards section. I don't think those are notable awards. Also, ZERO refs provided in this article, and the first result for "andrea joce santos" on google is in fact this wikipedia page. Completely unnotable 13-year old artist. — Timneu22 · talk 14:07, 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 redirect to Eyes Open#Track listing. –MuZemike 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could be happy[edit]

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

No indication why this song is particularly important. While claims are made that it is "widely used in media", there isn't a single source provided in the article. Google searches show the song (how couldn't it?) but where is the proof of notability, significance, or importance? I don't see any, so that's the AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No, you can't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Eyes Open ("weak" because of the improperly formatted title). That article mentions a few factoids about the song. Location (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eyes Open. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eyes Open. The song is mentioned within album and concert reviews (e.g., [12][13][14][15][16]), but the coverage for the song itself ranges from passing mentions to 1-2 sentences; nothing particularly significant enough to convince me it satisfies WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a redirect is necessary because if someone searches for the song title (in the future) they will probably end up at the album article anyway. Also, this article is mostly unsupported and unencyclopedic interpretation by a fan. If the song was really used in documentaries and an episode of Smallville, this can be mentioned at the album article or band article IF verified by reliable sources. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Location above noted the improperly formatted title. I fixed this with a Move just in case the article survives or gets redirected. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 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 deleted as hoax (of some kind). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Ógan[edit]

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

Try as I might, I'm unable to verify a single thing in this walled garden of hoax articles, so let's delete the lot shall we? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Included in the nom are:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. The Mathieu Ógan and Number Forty7 articles both link to Edgar West, which is also unverifiable and another possible hoax. snigbrook (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bollocks. The articles in the Guardian and the Independent would be online and googlable if they existed. But they don't. "Why hath thou forsaken me" -- oh dear, our "artist" can't even manage the morphology of early modern English. (Bone up on it via the very first line of this.) Want some lonely-people-looking-lost art? Here you go. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's thou hast, hath was an Elizabethan conjugation (of to have) for 3rd pers. sing. has. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --John (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:54, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Payne[edit]

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

Article on young footballer who has not played at a fully professional level as required by WP:ATHLETE. Originally PROD'ed by myself on these grounds, disputed by creator who said the following: "Payne has played numerous reserve team games for Fulham; I know that he is certainly Football League standard and would be surprised not to see him playing for Gillingham next season. No, he hasn't had a proffessional game quite yet, but I am sure he is to very soon too. Also, he was part of a Premier League team. Even if it was only at reserve level, it's still the best league in the world. As soon as his signing for Gillingham was officially announced, an IP came and added it to the page, this shows that there is interest in this player's WP article. If there are any more concerns I would be happy to answer them. Thanks". Thus I bring it here. As an aside, it's refreshing to see a PROD being removed and an explanation actually being given as to the reasoning behind it for once......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. Deprodding reason could be quoted as a classic example of WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Number 57, defiantly WP:CRYSTAL - argument by the user who disputed the prod that an IP edited the page is irrelevant, editing the page does not establish notability Random Time 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I am creator) Very well, I understand if he is not notable quite yet. Just to clarifying my point about the IP, it showed that a non-Wikipedian had gone onto the page, probably to find out information about him. I have saved a copy of the page and will reinstate it as soon as he gets his first professional app., which will be soon I reckon. I am new to all this, and was just doing my bit to make WP bigger and better, but I realise I was a bit hasty. Thanks. Half Price (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played at a fully-pro level and can't find anything to ensure that he passes Wp:GNG means no other outcome should happen than to delete the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's also nice to see someone take the effort to explain why the PROD tag was removed, rather than it just being removed without comment. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The prod game is lame anyhow. This needs to be deleted through regular channels. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when he become notable. Giant Snowman 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 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 Sarah 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nicholson (poet and author)[edit]

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

This is a paid-editing job as a result of this posting on elance.com. The job description reads "Would like a Wikipedia entry created for my work (already written). More work to follow if this turns out satisfactorily. See http://peternicholson.com.au" The service provider is a user named "Leghari_K

This should be deleted as a promotional puff piece where the subject is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia for his own personal gain. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for this type of promotion

This has been deleted multiple times in the past so I suggest deleting and salting. This page was userfied and then moved back into the mainspace without any major changes after the userfied copy was put up for MfD. (See here.) Them From Space 10:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article content does not explain why he's notable. Minima c (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability limited, fails WP:GNG etc. Claritas § 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content does not explain why he's notable, spammy too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above Vartanza (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. But I would also add that this article previously had an image of its subject which was deleted from Commons, so it disappeared. It now has an image of the subject, File:PeterN1.jpg. It was uploaded to Wiki by User talk:Leghari k who claimed it was GFDL-self but he did not create the image and does not own the copyright to it. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put the new image up for deletion here. Them From Space 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waverleywattle/Peter Nicholson (poet and author) as "delete". Bencherlite ^Talk 19:39, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Barberis[edit]

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

Borderline advertising, not sourced, and not written in a neutral tone. May not be notable, but I'm not sure of the exact rules around musical directors. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up for NPOV and clarification of notability. There are strings of awards there but they're cited only to some generic page, and it's altogether unclear whether they are significant awards. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources become available. Many of the claimed awards are awards for videos he worked on- not awards that he himself was awarded. Most of the awards are purely regional in scope; this person's sole claim to notability is the Video Director of the Year awards in 2007 and 2008 from the Canadian Country Music Association, but as far as I can determine, those awards weren't reported on by any independent sources. None of the biographical information in the article is verified in any independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, I've located a variety of external and independent sources - press releases, newspaper articles - will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanis103 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... the two that look like newspaper articles are both dead links. Press releases aren't independent sources, so they won't be useful, and awards that are purely local in scope won't be useful, either, as you already have those in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is odd. The first dead link should have been an article in the "Langley Advance," but when I searched their archives for "Stephano Barberis," I got zero hits. The second looked like a link to something in "Canada.com," but not only was it a dead link, but when I searched their archives for "Stephano Barberis," I got zero hits there, too. How did you reach those articles? I can't find them at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did a google search for Stephano Barberis and Sweatshop Union as well as Stephano Barberis and The Higgins. I could open the pages there and in a new tab but when put on here it created a dead link. [17] Here's one of the links. It works on my computer so I'm not sure what happened. Kanis103 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah! I can see that one, and it's definitely the sort of thing we're looking for- if I had one more like that (since the criteria call for 'multiple'), I'd almost certainly change my opinion. I'm going offline so don't be disappointed if I don't change my opinion right away when you post them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's another one, but once again it comes up as a dead link on Wiki but I'm able to read via Google search. [18]Kanis103 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointy Keep. Better sourced, and far more notable awards, than the plague of articles on porn performers which survive AFDs based on non-independent industry-promotional awards [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] almost ad infinitum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO. Article needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing, but surmountable issues are not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessarily verbose and borderline advertising. I have googled awards such as the CCMAs and they are returned below the the annual Call Centre Management Awards. Does this mean that Wikipedia should include the biographies of notable call centre managers? I am all for the democratisation of Wikipedia but if we allow local awards to be deemed meritorious, where do we stop? School prizes? The biography is also ludicrously self-aggrandising: "Throughout most of elementary and secondary school, the somewhat-reclusive Stephano became known for his imaginative ideas and unique writing, always combining some hybrid of eccentric premise, unique fantasy, and bizarre sequence of events." Source? Does Mr. Barberis have an official biographer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.179.58 (talk) 12:21, 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 keep. –MuZemike 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still Remains[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND guidelines. I can find some reviews on Google News but nothing that seems to satisfy the requirement for being "non-trivial" in the BAND criteria. The article states "minor UK chart success" but is not clear about what this means or can provide non-trivial sources. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Band clearly meets WP:BAND. Two albums for a more important indie label. See List of Roadrunner Records artists for a list of other artists on the label. Coverage in SPIN. Two albums charted in Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart reaching no. 6 and no. 43 positions. See also, Still Remains at AllMusic, and Still Remains at Roadrunner Records--Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes point 5 of WP:MUSIC - 2 records released on Roadrunner. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per point 5, but please get some inline citations in this article. The lack of any third-party reviews or coverage is worrisome. — Timneu22 · talk 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs added. Lugnuts (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to the roadrunnerrecords.com are not third party. See PSTS. Fæ (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources are reliable when speaking about themselves. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I'm not suggesting they are removed but self-published sources do not demonstrate a subject is notable (the point of the nomination here) no matter how many times they claim to be on their own website. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable via album releases and coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They also had a top-100 album in the UK ([25]).--Michig (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am against the deletion of this page for multiple reasons.

1.) Still Remains was signed to Roadrunner Records, one of the largest U.S. hard rock/heavy metal record labels. Many smaller bands that were/are signed to much smaller indie labels avoid deletion somehow, so why delete Still Remains?

2.) Although this band did not sell millions, they headlined numerous national tours and were brought on tours with many larger acts such as Bullet For My Valentine, Shadows Fall, Aiden, and Hawthorne Heights.

3.) This band did in fact have a single ("Dancing With The Enemy") that landed on the charts.

4.) Songs by Still Remains made their way onto significant compilation albums and members of Still Remains were involved in musical projects with prominent hard rock/heavy metal musicians such Slipknot, Fear Factory, Machine Head, and Trivium.

If deletion of non-notable bands is something that is trying to be done, I feel that the smallest, least notable bands be proposed for deletion well before acts like Still Remains.

Hsxeric (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Vittles[edit]

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

Non-notable product does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Survived VfD years ago before based on editors shopping knowledge. Tiny article that hasn't expanded because there isn't anything to say about it other than "this is a product, this is what it is like, and this is who makes it". Apparently it isn't made anywhere anymore, so it probably won't see much improvement here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. Top-selling consumer product for many years, with significant press coverage in the relevant business sector; the problem is not whether adequate sourcing exists (>700 GBooks hits, for example), but separating out the nontrivial coverage from the ubiquitous passing mentions. Article needs significant improvement, of course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My cat hates it, but tens of millions of other felines love it. This has been an extremely well-known and blockbuster-sale product. It is a notable brand name. Keep. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 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. –MuZemike 00:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Pölöskei[edit]

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

WP:HOAX, also fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Specifically: the two articles listed are almost identical copies of each other. Both make claims for notability (appearances for MTK Hungaria and membership of the Hungary national football team which are not supported by sources: here is the FIFA report for the Hungary match the two players supposedly played in. There's no suggestion on the website of MTK Hungaria that either player has appeared in the first team. And finally, on the day they both supposedly played for Liverpool reserves against Crewe reserves, Liverpool were playing Manchester City. Page created by serial page creator. Pretty Green (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, which is essentially a copy of the first and contains the same false information.:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pretty Green (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Pölöskei played youth level for Hungary and only reserve football for LFC, but that is all - does not seem to have appeared for first team at MTK Hungaria. Not sure if Adorján has ever played serious football for anybody. Youth representation does not confer notability and reserve football certainly doesn't. --ClubOranje^T 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - not hoaxes, but certainly not notable - both fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I mention WP:HOAX under the context of it's first sentence: A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. This article, by claiming the players have appeared for MTK and have been in the Hungary national team, is doing such. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. In agreement with above arguments --MicroX (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I indefinitely blocked the article's creator for... creating articles about non-notable players. I believe the author either lacks competence or is deliberately creating hoaxes. No way of telling, however, since they never responded to warnings, comments or questions on their talk page. TFOWR 09:40, 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 Snow keep . List clearly meets the inclusion criteria in WP:GNG, no arguments to delete besides nominator's. (Non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American sportspeople[edit]

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

No inclusion criteria apart from Jewish and American. Category:Jewish American sportspeople serves this purpose better. Gnevin (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting project , enough referenced Rirunmot 10:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep Clear inclusion criteria - IE Jewish and American. All ref'd, notable topic. Categories go hand in hand with lists, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Inclusion criteria could not be any clearer than they are. Meets WP:lists to the tee.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep if we delete that, we should also delete all "List of Jewish American ..." articles and all similar articles, like List of Italian American entertainers etc. but this is a notable list which meets the inclusion criteria. WP:SNOW. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:20, 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 Snow/Speedy keep. Not WP:OR - sourced with many reliable references. Jews are both a religion, an ethnicity, and a nation/people, Judaism is not only a religious affiliation, but also a people with common ethnic/national characteristics. The relationship of Jews and sports has been a subject of considerable scholarly and popular attention over the years, so the WP:OR claim is invalid, and verifiability issues in the article should be addressed in the talkpage, not in an AfD. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews in sports[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inclusion criteria are unclear, arbitrary and WP:OR. What is a major international tournaments, how many is several season , What is a major national league. Owners of world records current owners only or past owners? Gnevin (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports (2nd nomination) This is a case of overcategorisation in list form. Why is it relevant that these sportspeople are Jewish? We do't have lists of Christian or Muslim sportspeople, and nor should we Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be a case for an article on Jews in sports, as demonstrated by the attention this topic generates, documented here, but that does not provide a rationale for a list of this type. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely there's a reference to Airplane! in here somewhere, I know it. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you picked a bad week to quit AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion is clear (IE any notable Jewish sportsperson - read for notable, has a WP article). Sourced list, no different to List of Jewish American sportspeople. Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Lugnuts' point -- nom also nominated the parallel cat Lug points to for deletion, on the same basis. It was kept yesterday as a Snow Keep -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American sportspeople.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (religion unrelated to occupation, it's practically the example given in the guideline, and as other have pointed out, there's no list of Christian in sports, Muslims in sports, Zoroastrian in sports, etc), and WP:SALAT: inclusion criterion not clear. I thought it meant athletes, but it turns out it's anything related to sports. Article also has WP:LAY, WP:EL major issues.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated in the previous AfD and as now demonstrated in extreme detail in the current version of the list, the relationship of Jews and sports has been a subject of considerable scholarly and popular attention over the years. The prologue to the list now includes a footnote with a selected list of books on the topic, and the 235 footnotes also demonstrate this. The Airplane! joke referenced above is in fact an old stereotype, which Jewish studies scholars have taken pains to confront.[26] There is nothing "non-encyclopedic" about this categorization given the existence of an encyclopedia (and many other books) on exactly this topic.[27]--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you want to delete this article per the rationale you gave, please consider nominating List of Turkish Sportspeople too. Judaism/Jews are quite different from other religions in the sense that those terms have an aspect of nationality and ethnicity, so that the word "Jewish" may be accounted in the same way as "Turkish", though not in the same way as "Christian" or "Buddhist". Maashatra11 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have List of Turkish Sportspeople, so the reason for deletion given here should be a valid reason to delete that article as well. Anyway, there's reliable sources and I see no reason why to delete this interesting and well-formatted article. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ah, the good old WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all the Turkish sportspeople listed are or were athletes (a couple later became coach or sports journalist). The article under AfD includes owners, sportcasters (such as Chris Berman whose father is stated to be supposedly Jewish, though there's no source for this claim in this article or any mention in the Chris Berman one), promoters and, presumably could include Jewish hot dog vendors at sports venues as well. Clear inclusion criterion you say...--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is all too often referred to by editors and IPs who seem not to have read anything other than its title. It states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): "Sometimes these comparisons are ... valid.... When used correctly ... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep.... The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; Snow/Speedy keep. I encourage nom to withdraw his nomination here, as he has just done in his nominations of 21 other Jewish-related cats (there may be more -- that's just what I noticed within the past 48 hours). As he now understands (and I can provide more information if necessary), the Jews are both a religion, an ethnicity, and a nation/people. If he fails to do so, I urge that this be snow kept, as was his concurrent nomination of the deletion of a similar category at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American sportspeople.

In addition, his "reasons" are not reasons for deletion of the list; rather, if he wishes he is free to raise them on the list talk page as ways in which he believes the list might be improved. Furthermore, the notability of this intersection--as measured by Wikipedia standards--is reflected in the below books all of which focus on all or some of the elements of the list that nom is suggesting be deleted; if he reads one every other day, it might tide him over for the summer:

Jews and Baseball: The Post-Greenberg Years, 1949-2008, Burton Alan Boxerman, Benita W. Boxerman, McFarland, 2010, ISBN 0786428287
The Baseball Talmud: The Definitive Position-by-Position Ranking of Baseball's Chosen Players, Howard Megdal, Collins, 2009, ISBN 0061558435
Jews and the Sporting Life, Vol. 23 of Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Ezra Mendelsohn, Oxford University Press US, 2009, ISBN 0195382919
Day by Day in Jewish Sports History, Bob Wechsler, KTAV Publishing House, 2008, ISBN 1602800138
The Big Book of Jewish Athletes: Two Centuries of Jews in Sports - a Visual History, Peter S. Horvitz, Joachim Horvitz, S P I Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719277
The Big Book of Jewish Sports Heros: An Illustrated Compendium of Sports History and The 150 Greatest Jewish Sports Stars, Peter S. Horvitz, SP Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719072
Jews, Sports, and the Rites of Citizenship, Jack Kugelmass, University of Illinois Press, 2007, ISBN 025207324X
The New Big Book of Jewish Baseball: An Illustrated Encyclopedia & Anecdotal History, Peter S. Horvitz, Joachim Horvitz, Perseus Distribution Services, 2007, ISBN 1561718211
Emancipation through Muscles: Jews and Sports in Europe, Michael Brenner, Gideon Reuveni, translated by Brenner, Reuveni, U of Nebraska Press, 2006, ISBN 0803213557
Jewish Sports Stars: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, David J. Goldman, Edition 2, Kar-Ben Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1580131832
Judaism's Encounter with American Sports, Jeffrey S. Gurock, Indiana University Press, 2005, ISBN 0253347009
Jews and the Olympic Games; Sport: Springboard for Minorities, Paul Yogi Mayer, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004, ISBN 0853034516
Great Jews in Sports, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0824604539
Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash between Sport and Politics: with a complete review of Jewish Olympic medallists, Paul Taylor, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, ISBN 1903900883
The 100 Greatest Jews in Sports: Ranked According to Achievement, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Scarecrow Press, 2003, ISBN 0810847752
Foiled, Hitler's Jewish Olympian: the Helene Mayer Story, Milly Mogulof, RDR Books, 2002, ISBN 157143092X
The Big Book of Jewish Baseball: An Illustrated Encyclopedia & Anecdotal History, Peter S. Horvitz, Joachim Horvitz, SP Books, 2001, ISBN 1561719730
Jewish Sports Legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, 3rd Ed, Joseph Siegman, Brassey's, 2000, ISBN 1574882848
Sports and the American Jew, Steven A. Riess, Syracuse University Press, 1998, ISBN 0815627548
When Boxing was a Jewish Sport, Allen Bodner, Praeger, 1997, ISBN 027595353X
Ellis Island to Ebbets Field: Sport and the American Jewish Experience, Peter Levine, Oxford University Press US, 1993, ISBN 0195085558
The Jewish Child's Book of Sports Heroes, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0824603605
The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, Joseph M. Siegman, SP Books, 1992, ISBN 1561710288
The Jewish Athletes Hall of Fame, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Shapolsky Publishers, 1989, ISBN 094400704X
The Jewish Boxers Hall of Fame, Ken Blady, SP Books, 1988, ISBN 0933503873
The Great Jewish Chess Champions, Harold U. Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, Hippocrene Books, 1987, ISBN 0870523058
The Jewish Baseball Hall of Fame: a Who's Who of Baseball Stars, Erwin Lynn, Shapolsky Publishers, 1986, ISBN 0933503172
From the Ghetto to the Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary, Andrew Handler, East European Monographs, 1985, ISBN 0880330856
The Jew in American Sports, Harold Uriel Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, Edition 4, Hippocrene Books, 1985, ISBN 0882549952
Jewish Baseball Stars, Harold Uriel Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, Hippocrene Books, 1984, ISBN 0882548980
The Jewish Athlete: A Nostalgic View, Leible Hershfield, s.n., 1980
Encyclopedia of Jews in Sports, Bernard Postal, Jesse Silver, Roy Silver, Bloch Pub. Co., 1965

Should nom find the reading to be too solitary, and wish to move around a bit more this summer, I suggest to him that he might consider traveling to visit the following, the existence of which also suggests the notability of the intersection:

International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
Jewish Canadian Athletes Hall of Fame
U.S. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
Michigan Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Western Pennsylvania
Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Northern California
Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
Orange County Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
Rochester Jewish Sports Hall of Fame

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Arxiloxos and especially Epeefleche --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nominator could also attend the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish Olympics.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The topic(this specific intersection/cross-categorization) is notable (as well established by others here), the entries are notable and verifiably members of the topic, the scope is not arbitrary. The scope might need to be made more explicit, or narrowed, but those are editorial concerns. Indeed there appear to have been productive discussions about scope of both the "Jews" and "in sports" scope on the talkpage, so this is definitely not a hopeless/abandoned dumping ground. DMacks (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there are notable Jewish sports organisations and Halls of Fame as well.-MacRusgail (talk) 10:16, 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. — Scientizzle 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin McGillis[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Certainly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN Lincolnite (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - possible merge to election article. GregJackP (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights.--98.242.241.252 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the person who proposed this article for deletion, let me just reply to the charge that "This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter". Having never been to Florida and living over 4,000 miles away, I can assure you that I have no opinion whatsoever on who should be elected Governor of Florida. In fact, I had only faintly heard of Alex Sink prior to this discussion. --Lincolnite (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strong KEEP very notable Google Search Results Leave No Doubt. I also adopt the sourced links above for keeping.--Dymo400 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat what was said above: *Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights--Dymo400 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to come back and re-look at the article based on new sources that have been found. Based on the above post, there are exactly two usuable sources listed - the Miami Herald article and the South Florida Gay article. The Herald states in the article that you've probably never heard of him - hardly a ringing endorsement for notability. None of the rest have anything to do with McGillis, they are about Menudo. Additionally, based on the above sources, additional information would have to be added to the article. This would include the large number of lawsuits, the felony arrest for fraud, accusations of sexual harassment made by a Menudo member, accusations of violence, etc. I don't have a problem with working that up for y'all, but is that what you really want? You might want to read up on the WP:BLP policy - negative information is included if it is properly sourced, and one cannot use Wikipedia for self-promotion. You might be better off if the article is deleted. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above comment, the Miami Herald source noted above stated:

"According to a Miami Herald story during the 2008 campaign: He was arrested on organized fraud charges in 1999 and had the charges dismissed as part of a plea deal that required him to pay restitution of more than $22,000. He has been sued twice by acquaintances who accused him of repeat violence, cases he claims were motivated by money. He has sued eight different people and organizations in Miami-Dade, while a member of Menudo sued him claiming sexual harassment in Puerto Rico but later retracted the claim. McGillis also has been sanctioned by the Third District Court of Appeal for filing frivolous and repetitive briefs." [28]

Any of that material can be added to the article, because a reliable source has published it already. I'll ask again, do you really want to keep the article? Because if it is kept, it has to be balanced, with both the good and the bad. If I were intending to just denigrate him, I would have just added the material to the article and sourced it - and it would have been kept in the article. I am trying to get you to think of what is best for him - does he really want a Wikipedia article with everything that is significant (bad and good) out there permanently? Finally, it is not proper to remove other's comments from an AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got to say that leaving that comment even with the quote "... but later retracted the claim." is a shame on your part. I have asked for assistance with the dispute as going after someone you do not know with such malice is truly wrong. I hope you reconsider your actions.--Dymo400 (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of sources is of paramount importance in considering the essential question of notability, and particularly in a biography, which is what this discussion should be about. But this discussion should be about the basics rather than the details, and editors should focus on the general notability of the subject, ad I have no view on that. Rodhull andemu 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under that view the entire Blog should be quoted "Ex-Menudo promoter rips Sink for opposing gay marriage: Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, the leading Democratic contender for governor, recently told The St. Petersburg Times: "I don't support gay marriage. I think that is entirely a religious decision that individuals can make. I do support civil unions." That statement led Darrin McGillis, who is among about two dozen gubernatorial candidates you've probably never heard of, to label Sink a "bigot" in a press release. "Ask yourself - Is using religious teachings to deny equal rights to gay people any less wrong than using religious teachings to discriminate against people of color or against people of different cultures wanting to marry?" he asked. Who is this guy?" --Dymo400 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dymo400: the blog you refer to is a not a personal blog but a newspaper blog maintained by the journalistic staff of Miami Herald, see its description at[29]. The difference is clearly explained in WP:NEWSBLOG: ""Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Thus the blog post in question actually satisfies the WP:V requirements. Nsk92 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case I just do not like watching anyone who is clueless that this discussion is taking place with no way of defending themselfs, I mean read the quote it's not from his opposition it is from the reporter who appears to have had a bias just by the fact of stating someone says he did something but later said he lied. C'mon repeating such disgusting comments is unfair to any human being. Had he not been a controversial candidate for Governor would we even be having this conversation "NO". I would never do this to anyone and I always think others are like me, but I guess I am wrong- FYI did you see this McGillis Personal Tragedy.--Dymo400 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls far short of passing WP:POLITICIAN. GoogleNews results are fairly slight[30]. Plus significant potential BLP issues. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not the actual subject of any non-trivial coverage. Remember, notability is not inherited by one subject from another. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED, which specifically states, "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable." — Satori Son 04:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son. Being around notable people doesn't make one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these links tell a different story? - *Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights.--Dymo400 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article can use more expansion, especially covering his political campaigns and his business ventures. Make it sound less like a commercial/political ad and more like a well-researched Wikipedia entry.--XLR8TION (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have disclosed that you have been canvassed by Dymo400 to participate in this AfD[31]. Nsk92 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Dymo400 has been engaged in canvassing in relation to this AfD: [32][33][34][35][36][37]. Future participants in this AfD: when !voting, please disclose if you have been canvassed by anyone to comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Because I was not the sole creator of the Darrin McGillis page I felt that those who participated in the final creation of the page should be notified of the Afd why I was the only one notified I have no clue. I simply provided the following message identical on each alerting them of the Afd and nothing else: "Way back when we both created the Darrin McGillis page and now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted. Why dont you chime in if you have a minute. Thanks" I wish we could get away from this fifth grader back and forth and want appears to be mean conduct towards my person I feel like a punching bag and I am not. To those who voted Keep I agree with you.--Dymo400 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your messages expressly violated WP:CANVASSING which states: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages". Leaving a message that "now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted" is clearly indicative of your opinion that you think the article should be kept and, moreover, suggests bad faith motives by those advocating deletion. Regarding "why I was the only one notified I have no clue": Read the instructions at WP:AFD. The customary practice is for the AfD nominator to notify the person who created the original version of the article (in this case you). Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not know why you are being so abrasive towards me in your tone. I have been nothing but courtesous towards you in all my writings, please disclose if you have any bias towards the subject of this Afd and his views on Gay Marriage or any. The tone you have expressed concerns me greatly. I hope you have a great week.--Dymo400 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, please. I have not been abrasive to you, but I did feel the need to point out an obvious violation of WP:CANVASSING on your part. You have also engaged in repeated WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations by implying that the proponents of deletion are motivated by personal bias or political considerations or by some sort of connection with the campaign of the subject's political opponents. It was pointed out to you at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that such accusations are inappropriate and without basis. The AfD nominator and the other delete !voters in this AfD have long and varied editing histories totally unrelated to the AfD's subject. On the other hand, a review of your contrib record shows that a large proportion (possibly the majority) of your contributions have been related to this article. Speaking about disclosures, if you have any connection to the subject's political campaign, you must disclose it here, per WP:COI. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following trend appears on GregJackP (Talk) page and should placed here for review as it points to a interesting view point on the Afd subject:

":I was going to post on the AfD, but this is probably better. First, for the sorts of claims that your describing, I'd be hard pressed to see a blog - even a newspaper's one - being sufficiently reliable to be used to support the claims of fraud and violence that you point to. Strong claims need strong sources. More importantly, though, I'm uncomfortable with the argument that you're making in the AfD that if the article is kept strongly negative material will need to be added. That's not a given, and it has a rather nasty appearance in terms of the debate. With respect, I think it might be better to stay clear of that sort of argument, and just focus on whether or not the subject is notable. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is germane and he is a public figure, it should be included. I have a problem with Wikipedia being used strictly for promotional purposed, paint the article rosy and bright, and sweeping negative information under the rug. It needs to be balanced - but the blog also stated that it was reported in the print newspaper, and I would probably try to find that ref and use it instead. I agree that refs on negative material be impeccable, and that we don't want to go to far the other way either. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if those sources exist, then he is likely to be notable. If they don't, they won't be included. Either way it shouldn't really help in an AfD - it feels wrong, as the point is to make NPOV articles, so arguing that negative material will be added comes across in the wrong light as it is both largely redundant and potentially threatening, and at best it points to a keep vote. I gather he's pulled out of the race, though, so this is likely to be a non-issue in the end. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

End of trend on GregJackP (Talk) page --Dymo400 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to the sparsity of third-party reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIo. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Almost no coverage of this individual, fails WP:Politician and general WP:BIO. Likely written by someone with a WP:COI as a promotional piece. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, music label notability claims are WP:ONEEVENT and covered at Menudo (band), political aspects are a marginal fail of WP:CRYSTAL at this time. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Quantpole (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. In fact, the only current article I could find mentioning him on Google News indicates he has declined to run for Governor. AniMate 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:MUSICBIO. What coverage exists in independent reliable sources is not significant. I would be OK with a redirect to Menudo (band), but there still isn't a vast amount to say about him there. Location (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not yet notable. If he wins an election, sure, but as is this could easily become a BLP problem due to negative material which is available. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that many voices out there for Gay rights and it is a shame that someone who is for equal rights of all people is getting his name smeared. I hope you all read this article South Florida Gay Newspaper --Dymo400 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I too have been contacted by Dymo400 and have just added a reliably sourced bit about McGillis' withdrawal from the elections for Governor. That said, I think the article can by improved but is currently quite weak. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having run through the sources he fails the bar, however if he wins then re-create without prejudice. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. What we have at the moment in an unsourced section about a record label and a failed political campaign, with only two reliable sources covering the guy. That's just not enough for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Recreation if he becomes notable in the future would not be a problem. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:36, 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. –MuZemike 00:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozi Amanat[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article is a great example of WP:MASK - only reference on which notability is directly based is a single Wordpress link, which is not itself linked from the ostensible parent organisation's site. Everything else in the article is puffery. Etrigan (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article is Stuck in edit war with IP and Regency42, neither will come to the talk page I say delete it if it is violating WP:MASK--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references often do not refer to this individual. Where it does refer to him it is in list form or as a spokesperson, which are not non-trivial references. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and 'Pretty Green', and the attempt to remove the Afd tag which I reverted. Jusdafax 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject is NN. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable businessman and sale of family company to E*Trade for $280 Million is very notable and should be kept. [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.qq (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The document that you mention above does not mention Ozi Amanat. We required verifiable independent sources which discuss the subject of an article in a non-trivial manner. Pretty Green (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability and verifiability problems. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:19, 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. –MuZemike 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Watke[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination of an expired prod with reason: The individual does not meet WP:BIO1E or WP:BIO generally. I feel this one required a debate before deleting, it at least has potential for merging even if it fails as a standalone. SpinningSpark 08:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence, but as I looked at what is basically the sole source for the incident I decided for delete. Watke was essentially a polical activist that engaged in criminal activity (arson), so I judged him against WP:PERP. He fails the first two requirements easily, but I originally thought that he may have passed the third requirement; however he did not testify before the Senate Committee (the source is a trascript of the hearing) and was only mentioned once in the entire document. I don't think that gives him adequate notability for inclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 10:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting geneology project, but the subject fails WP:BIO1E, general WP:BIO, and, as noted above, WP:PERP. ALXVA (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—there appear to be some apparently reliable sources backing this up, and a glance suggests that more could be found with relative ease. I think we should wait a bit on this one. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 13:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not adverse to waiting to see if the article can be better sourced. Movementarian (Talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if this event were widely covered, wouldn't he still fail WP:BIO1E? And WP:PERP unless there is "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role"? The article has been around over a year with nothing but the current sources, the most compelling of which (Interstate Commerce Commission testimony) only makes passing mention of him: "I think his name is Robert Watke." ALXVA (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no deadline. If someone wants to "adopt" the article and try and turn it into something better, I have no problem with that. Perhaps they will be able to find better sources. As it stands, given the information that I was able to locate, I am not changing my opinion. I'm just willing to give someone else the time to try and bring it up to snuff as there is clearly a seed to potentially nurture. Movementarian (Talk)

Comment That's reasonable. I would prefer it be deleted and then userfied or incubated though, since despite WP:OTHERSTUFF, I bet folks wanting to wikify their own geneology projects will point to the precedent. ALXVA (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Quite notable and discussed substantially in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what are the independent sources that substantially discuss this person? ALXVA (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only saw one good reference that made one mention of the individual, and that wasn't even strong. It said "I think his name was..." Movementarian (Talk) 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant historical figure. Adequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, DGG, what sources? Only one source is worth anything and it hardly mentions the subject, and only one time. In addition, even if there were several sources, this individual is known only for one event. Do you have anything to back up your statement that he is either a "significant historical figure" or that the article is "adequately sourced"? I would gladly change my !vote if anyone can find a source or two that actually discusses this person in any signifiant detail. ALXVA (talk) 05:15, 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, NW (Talk) 08:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest the material be merged into a related appropriate article. Hash789 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) a tiny bit of this related to the elevator incident to Grain elevator. In the target article, there is presently no mention of conflict related to the market power of the railroads/grain elevator owners and the rise of cooperatively owned elevators. In the history of American agriculture the novel "The Octopus" by Norris also dealt with the monopoly power of the grain industry. This man is not someone who satisfies WP:BIO. He is alleged to have started a fire, but the outcome of his arrest is "unknown" according to the article. He gets a bare mention in some testimony. I am not seeing multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of Watke. The article has all this biographical detail of his ancestors and family which would be more at home at some genealogical website. Edison (talk) 19:30, 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) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 14[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is another album in a highly popular New Zealand compilation series. Nominating this would be like nominating the albums from Now Music. Sources exist for albums like this, but they don't always exist in the form of a webpage. (I know that New Zealand would have publisized something like this, so I'd try checking out physical sources as well.) Undead Warrior (talk) 02:27, 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) 00:04, 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, NW (Talk) 08:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable compilation album. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:53, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Harvard[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography per WP:BLP; non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, subject fails WP:CREATIVE. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that the ISBN numbers cited do not exist according to a Worldcat search, and the cited publisher is Blurb, Inc., an online self-publishing site. Empty Buffer (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Etrigan (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Live[edit]

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

Delete No significant coverage --Wipeouting (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the film has not been released yet, there is a Sunday Times article about it already. That's a pretty good start into significant coverage, in my book. Better to improve and expand at this point than delete. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does have some sources, but I don't see what makes it notable. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps recreate later, when there is more coverage. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be incubated.--Pink Bull 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn from the multiple notes on my talk page made within minutes of my prod/AfD of this article, the rapid fire "keeps" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Terhune Herrick, the unnecessary personal attack at the same AfD, etc, it seems clear neither AfD could possibly run in a proper fashion due to the automatic bad faith presumption that anyone daring to nominate an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for deletion must somehow want to contribute to whatever personal issues he is having with other editors at the moment. Will at least attempt to be have better faith than those who ran to his defense and hope that the current activity on the article will continue past this withdrawal so that the article is improved to the point that actual notability is shown rather than just adding sources confirming her dates of birth, date, and releases of her books. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Payson Terhune[edit]

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

Unnotable pastor and author. Fails WP:N, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO in general. Unlike his wife and son, EP Terhune appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources other than brief mentions in relation to his wife and son, and a few listings in directory type biography encyclopedias, which are considered tertiary sources and do not aid in establishing notability. Prod removed by article creator with note of "tag take it to afd if disagree, if being in an encyclopedia is not encyclopedic, I am perplexed". Per the article's few citations, he is mentioned in Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, a 1887-1889 work that listed over 20,000 people and is not a reliable source due to its having been proven that the work also included at least 200 fake biographies, a clear failing of WP:RS. The second listing, Herringshaw's National Library of American Biography is another 1909-1914 work, with over 35,000 entries, that has a single, short statement on Edward Payson Terhune nestled between the entries on his famous son Albert Payson Terhune and equally famous wife Mary Virginia Terhune. It says, in total, "Terhune, Edward Payson, clergyman, was born about 1825 in New Brunswick, N.J. In 1859 he removed to Newark, N. J. ; and there took charge of the First Reformed Church. In 1876-77 he was the American chaplain at Rome, Italy. In 1879-84 he was pastor of a congregational church in Springfield, Mass.; and in 1884 he took charge of a reformed church in Brooklyn, N.Y. He died May 25, 1907, in New York City." - it does not given any indication of why he was notable or noteworthy, beyond perhaps his one year stint in Rome. This, again, is not significant coverage. He also is stated to have written a three books, none of which appear to be particularly noteable wither. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets every requirement for Wikipedia notability. I think you are confusing notability with remarkability. Appleton's is still accepted as reliable despite some bogus entries and has not been blacklisted by Wikipedia. The New York Times is also incorrect every single day, and must print corrections every day, and still is a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I do not think he meets the requirements for Wikipedia notability, hence bringing it to the community for discussion. No, I am am I confusing the two. Whether he was a remarkable person is irrelevant. Difference being that the New York Times prints corrections, while Appleton's never did, leaving all known errors in during later reprints. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 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. Input since relist has only been in favor of deletion; article has shown no improvement since nomination. — Scientizzle 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel Inc.[edit]

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

Gnews search returns only three hits which mention the company; one is a press release, another appears to be a generic link to one of their whitepapers, and the last only mentions them in passing. This would not seem to meet WP:CORP. In addition, the person creating this page added it because they "resell their products", so there is some COI here. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm must say I am surprised, TechExcel is a leader in ALM and has been 2 years running on the SD Times 100 list, as per here: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/34383 please let me know what else I need to provide? MaryMallone (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of press releases, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that ALM, ITSM and CRM are "application lifecycle management", "IT service management", and "customer relationship management", yet another bit player in a crowded field. Fits the profile of a Wikipedia spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how do you define "another bit player"? If you look in trade press for example in the ALM area then you will see that TechExcel is a leader in the area. MaryMallone (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MaryMallone, you may want to review notability requirements, and policies regarding conflict of interest. I see that you are new here, and I'm sure you have the best of intentions--it is very difficult to write an article and get it accepted if you're not familiar with policy. If the article is deleted, by all means feel free to request that it be put into your userspace for additional work or time required to get the article in good shape. Please feel free to post any questions on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nuujinn, I did look at both the Notability and Conflict of interest articles, and on the notability I most of the 3rd party sources on TechExcel is relating to specific products so I opted not to use them as that would be in my mind very commercial and on the conflict of interest then I deliberatly kept the text on both the company and products simple and generic to make sure it would be objective. MaryMallone (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, well you see, what you need is to find some references such as reviews that cover the company in some depth, or references that show the company has won a significant award. Absent significant coverage in reliable sources, notability is not established. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no assertion of notability. This reads as nothing more than a directory entry. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough substance and webpages about the company, I have used the software in several previous companies. Some links:

http://www.issue-tracking-software.de/

http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-use-plastic-scm-and-bugzilla-ii.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4083084.htm

http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/192204989;jsessionid=XKN1TNM0G3HWJQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN

RJsweden (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC) — RJsweden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Also, of those references: the first is a list of software in this space, the second is a blog entry on using the software, the third is a press release. The last is more of a product review than anything else. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The quality of this article put it on the early stub category. However, I have checked google, gnews, gbooks, gblogs and I could find numerous references for this company. As a personal note I have also checked their web-site and they have an ~~impressive~~ lengthy list of awards throughout the years (awards can be a little deceptive but it is an indication nevertheless...) http://www.techexcel.com/news/awards .Perhaps our inclination to deletionism and the fact that MaryMallone indeed has a COI with the company make us avoid to see the obvious - that this company is indeed notable. I would suggest to give the author the opportunity to improve the article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By all means, have a go at improving the article. I'm not finding the awards all that impressive: one of one hundred companies or projects that have influence, one of 5000 fastest growing companies, one of 500 largest companies by revenue, and this list. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Note: Normally, this would be closed as delete with this discussion, but the recent comments merit a little more discussion in my mind, hence the relist. Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient notability, also considering what has been put forward by the SPAs of this AfD. Haakon (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Haakon. Codf1977 (talk) 21:00, 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 00:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renmark Rovers FC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

speedy renomination due to last AfD. fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews [39]. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level league in South Australia. it is not like the Australian Football League or VFL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have restructured the article and added references. The club is 100 years old and boasts a highly successful alumnus, which satisifies notability for me. Movementarian (Talk) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry it may well be 100 years old but without any significant coverage of the club, it fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I have provided four articles from ABC about the club, which satisfies WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are :

ABC Radio broadcasts the Riverland Football League Grand Final - is about the Riverland Football League Grand Final and not the club.

Renmark Rovers reign is a LOCAL paper piece about a match the club won, given a club was going to win if the Loxton Tigers had won it would have been about them.

Renmark Rovers celebrates 100 years is about the club being 100 years old

Modra and Riccuito prepare for battle is not about the club.

So only one is what you could call "Significant coverage" (the one on the club being 100 years old). So still fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~As I pointed out earlier, significant coverage does not refer to quantity, but rather that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content."~~ Movementarian (Talk) 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mistook you. The Grand Final article is about the grand final that the club took part in, the fourth article i=links the player to the club in his early years and his final game. I think it meets the requirement, just barely which is enough for me. Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB since "the scope of their activities is [NOT] national or international in scale" as required. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that WP:CLUB was intended to cover sports teams. WP:ORG makes no mention of sports teams anywhere in the narrative. I haven't found a guideline that specifically covers the notability of teams. {{WP:SPORT]] is inder development, but does not address teams yet, so I will base my rebuttal on precedent. Single-A baseball teams are included in Wikipedia and they get marginal regional coverage in most places and almost never get national coverage. This team is no different than that. They are a professional team in a lower ranked division of Australian football. Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Renmark Rovers Football Club is not covered by WP:CLUB? That's a perplexing argument. And on what basis is Renmark Rovers a "professional team"? Do you mean every player is paid a salary by the club, and plays football as a fulltime career? WWGB (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not perplexing. You are over-simplifying. From reading WP:CLUB it seems clear that it is intended for things like local chapters of national clubs ([[i.e. Rotary Club). I can't answer your second question, as I am not familiar with the ins and outs of lower level (or senior level for that matter) Australian football. All I can say is that the article now meets WP:GNG based on the following: They compete in a notable league (Riverland Football League) and they have press coverage from multiple reliable sources. It's not going to hurt my feelings if it goes, I just happen to think that it is at least as notable as minor league baseball teams. Movementarian (Talk) 12:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The club's notability has been established through it's age, it's coverage both in terms of region (It represents the largest city in the Riverland area of South Australia) and media (The local paper - the Murray Pioneer - is one of the major regional papers in the state), and the fact that a highly recognisable player and personality played for them, and in fact started his footballing life with them IIRC puts this over the line. It is a semi professional club, and to take out clubs simply because it's not fully professional would create a dangerous precedent that would remove all of the local level of football in Australia. The game at the local level is far more notable than the lower reaches of English soccer or the same level of American baseball. AFL-Cool 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the club is the only thing that to me lends an air of notability to the club, most of the rest of the points you make are based on WP:INHERITED notability. As for the press coverage, it lacks the Significant nature that you need to conclude notability. Codf1977 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant does not mean amount or weight according to the definition in WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that, there is no claim in my comments that violates WP:INHERITED. I find that comment highly insulting. AFL-Cool 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't buy the argument that the article about the 2009 Grand Final is inadmissible as demonstration of notability. How do you figure? Premise: The article is about the winner of the match. Fact: Remark Football Club is the winner of the match. Conclusion: The article is about Renmark Football Club. ~~One article with significant coverage and several with trivial coverage~~ Several articles with more than trivial coverage is enough to satisfy the GNG. I'm quite sure there would be more articles available at microfiche databases, but I'm not about to go find them. A history of the Renmark area might be a good place to go to find a bombproof source demonstrating notability. I also disagree that sporting clubs are intended to be encompassed by WP:CLUB - even SANFL wouldn't satisfy "activity on a national scale". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is somewhat borderline for a relist, but given that it's a rapid renomination, I'd rather give it some time to see whether consensus emerges, rather than just close it as no-consensus again. Shimeru 06:17, 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 Withdrawn from the multiple notes on my talk page made within minutes of my prod/AfD of this article, the rapid fire "keeps", the unnecessary personal attack, etc, it seems clear this AfD can not possibly run in a proper fashion due to the automatic bad faith presumption that anyone daring to nominate an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for deletion must somehow want to contribute to whatever personal issues he is having with other editors at the moment. Will at least attempt to be have better faith than those who ran to his defense and hope that the current activity on the article will continue past this withdrawal so that the article is improved to the point that actual notability is shown rather than just adding sources confirming her dates of birth, date, and releases of her books. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Terhune Herrick[edit]

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

Unnotable author. Fails WP:N and WP:AUTHOR. While it is clear that her mother and her one surviving brother are notable, Christine seems to have been fairly unnotable and has not received the significant coverage of her other family members. She does not have independent, significant coverage, primarily just mentions in relation to her family members. Prod removed by article creator, who created and abandoned the article in May 2007, not returning until it was prodded) with claim that having a NY Times obit makes her notable. Same creator also twice removed a notability tag. Two obituaries alone do not make a person notable, particularly when the obits cited appear to be similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family). Reprints/rewrites of those obits, if any, also do not make her notable. A single review of one of her books is also not significant coverage of the author herself (added by creator after removing the prod). While Mrs. Herrick's mother and brother are clearly notable subjects, she herself does not appear to be so and the notability of her family and one or two of her works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oddly enough Wikipedia states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Two obits satisfies that rule, and it is just silly speculation and original research to say that the New York Times and Chicago Tribune are "similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family)". I imagine that all books on Abraham Lincoln have the same information too. That is the nature of biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obits alone do not make her notable, particularly if said obits are simply press releases from the family (they have nearly identical wording, at least from your citations), and just two is not "significant coverage". Random short reviews of one or two of her works is also not significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The NYT times review of her book was added by me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I deserve some loathing too, I added a second one, there are four more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is loathing anyone. Kindly refrain from remarks that may indicate a presumption of bad faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See her profile in Notable American women, 1607-1950: a biographical dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 188-189 (available at G-Books) - notable and verifiable, an interesting and important part of US history. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, at least, is not an obit and is actual coverage of the person, versus the reviews of her novels. However, its preface indicates that it relied heavily on Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which is not a reliable source itself (no idea on the rules when one source uses a unreliable source). It is also still just a single point of actual significant coverage, that is independent of the subject. However, it is also still a WP:Tertiary source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. A stupid and time-wasting nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Nakon 15:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis "Grimace" Sumka[edit]

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

Non-notable indidual lacking GHits and GNEWS to support notability. CSD removed by SPA. ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject - {{db-a7}}. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - This is getting obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as the reasons for deletion have been rebutted with the improvements as noted in the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gotti[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unverified BLP article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All albums and/or singles are not notable. Hasn't won any awards or anything like that. Minima c (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. GregJackP (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's had coverage in plenty of reliable sources, and I've added 8 citations just now. Billboard called him "one of the pioneers of the West Coast Latin rap movement", and he's received many award nominations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul Erik has greatly improved the article. A Latin Grammy nomination alone is a default keep for WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. — Scientizzle 19:14, 25 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy the War God[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:N insufficient coverage found for this mascot to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources; fails WP:N and WP:V. If the platoon has officially changed its name on the back of the mascot, maybe this can be mentioned in the platoon's article (does it have one?) if it can be sourced? Ka renjc 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Google search turned up only one hit: A Tweet. There seems to be virtually no coverage in reliable sources accessible via the web, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:V. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication given that the mascot meets notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: You've got to be kidding me. This is simply crap that was made up one day by a few bored soldiers, and has absolutely no notability or encyclopedic value. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Author Bullmoosebell‎ (talk · contribs) has modified the page to be about his platoon, rather than the mascot. I still find an utter lack of notability in this unit, despite some self-published documentary about a higher headquarters (made by a non-notable company with a non-notable director) that mentions the platoon a few times. The author also has an issue about removing the AfD tag, despite several warnings not to; and has copied the info over to Teddy war god, which was quickly made a redirect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the lack of coverage confirms it is not notable. The platoon itself also wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. The general consensus about military units in the Mil Hist project is that it is generally only battalion-level or higher units that are notable (although some company/squadron equivs are notable and some battalions are not). AustralianRupert (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely NN. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AustralianRupert and JBSupreme, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References not sufficient to meet WP:ORG. More generally, this is a small sub-unit of an Army unit and it would be very unlikely for it to be notable (each infantry battalion has about nine infantry platoons, and the US Army has dozens of infantry battalions). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the above, and the fact that the creator does not wish to accept any assistance or advice. In any case, I have difficulty seeing how a platoon would meet notability requirements, although it is of course possible. GregJackP (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Tschögl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Questionable ~~nobility~~ notability; possible vanity piece. [email protected] (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment:

Delete: article fails WP:GNG.
Comment: there is no article for Tschögl in the German, Hebrew, or Yiddish wikipedias. While Tschögl would appear to not be notable, I would most strongly argue that the article is not a "vanity piece" - see this Google Books result.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is GNG?? [email protected] (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A typo. Oops. Apologies.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: according to Die Gerechten Österreichs. Dewritech (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this one is difficult, in my opinion. My first thought is that the article falls foul of WP:ONEVENT, but that is not necessarily cut and dried. It is difficult to determine notability here because the article does not state how notable the award of Righteous Among the Nations is. Is it a high/notable award like the Medal of Honor/Victoria Cross? I don't know. What I am saying is that the article needs some more biographical details and information to help readers decide the notability of the subject. Is there anything else that could be added? Perhaps someone could translate a few of the sources: that might help reviewers make up their minds about the notability of this subject. Currently I don't think it has significant coverage in realiable sources. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for evaluating of notability see Righteous among the Nations; more details of bio might be difficult in cases like this: normal people doing extraordinary things secretly, often risking their life for their convictions - and afterward just continuing a "normal" life. Dewritech (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Righteous among the Nations award seems analogous to the awards listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Notability that create a presumption of notability for their awardees.--Pink Bull 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the list on the article about the award there are over 22,000 recipients. Are we saying then that they are all notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of that award? Within the military history project the notability bar for award recipients is usually set at the highest decoration a nation awards e.g MOH or Victoria Cross and equivalents (or multiple second level awards). This is so that there is a limit on the number of stubs that are created. My point with this comment is that such an award shouldn't necessarily confer automatic notability, the subject should also satisfy some of the broader notability guidelines such as significant coverage in reliable sources. So far the coverage seems limited to passing mentions. However, I'm not in a rush to see the article deleted so if someone can further expand the article with some biographical details and a statement of why receiving the award is notable, I would be fine with that. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22,000 may not be that foreboding of an amount. The highest medal in the US has around 3,500 recipients (See Medal of Honor#Recipients), the highest medal in the UK has around 1,500 recipients (See Victoria Cross#Recipients), and the highest medal in the former USSR has around 13,000 (See Hero of the Soviet Union#History), to name a few countries. Also, unlike the Righteous among the Nations award which I imagine is closed to new recipients, there will likely be a steady increase in army medal of honor recipients.

The WP:ATHLETE standard allows for (probably) thousands of perma-stubs to be created each year. The bio of a Righteous among the Nations recipient is more likely to be interesting then the bio of a baseball player who played three games in the Major Leagues, but is now eligible for a stand-alone Wikipedia article due to WP:ATHLETE.

Regardless, I don't know if the Righteous among the Nations can fairly be compared to a country's highest medal of honor. Also, the notability standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Notability has never been accepted as a notability guideline, and is only an essay. Just throwing the idea out there.--Pink Bull 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 03:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be cleanly verifiable, and if the notability is at the border of what is and isn't, I'd rather lean towards inclusionism when there is verifiability. I think there's a decent chance this isn't a permastub, that someone will eventually be able to flesh this out with information from non-online sources, e.g., "ad Vashem" by Anton Maria Keim. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is verifiable and the award is fairly significant (it honorary citizenship and a pension from the State of Israel, should the recipient choose to live in Isreal). Passes WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:47, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Revisited[edit]

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

Fan edit film, doesn't seem notable enough. Except for one brief newspaper article, all other sources are fan edit forums. Google search just turns up blogs and forums. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Star Wars A New Hope Revisited falls under the same guidelines of The Phantom Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit. If you actually seen this version of Star Wars you'd understand how important it is regardless of being a fan edit and it should be recorded for posterity. —Preceding JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— JediTenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As per other evidence of notability: 1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, etc. Star Wars Revisited is an extremely advanced amateur edit of one of the most popular feature films ever made. It's notable of its own accord, as a milestone of amateur film editing, regardless of it's source material. Article should be preserved.Usa1936 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Usa1936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adywan and Star Wars Revisited was also featured in the movie *The People vs George Lucasand the director spoke about Adywans work in this *Interviewwhich also gives an example of this edit. This article should not be deleted Vizualeyez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC). — Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep One reliable reference, and i09.com seems credibly independent and a professional outfit. If kept, the waffly, unreferenced and unreliably-referenced material could be removed; to a stub if necessary. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep despite the SPA interest. As Baffle notes, the film is receiving coverage. Yes, article will require cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Phantom Edit was covered by several mainstream media outlets and the best this one can muster is a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. There are many fan edits of Star Wars, and this one is no more notable than any other one. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:FYI, the principle reference is from a US local newspaper The Meridian Star.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:So it relies heavily on a local newspaper. The Phantom Edit had coverage on a national scale from several major media outlets. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The mere fact that this edit exists is worth of noting in cinematic history as an amazing accomplishment. Furthermore the reason why the Phantom edit was covered so widely was the it was distributed around studios in hollywood thus making it "mainstream". It was looking for attention... However, for the most part, Adywan's Revisited has been mainly word to mouth between fans and doesn't seek attention in such a self-serving way. Revisited has been very much for the fans, edited by a fan, and greatly fan appreciated:

ANH Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85531634143&ref=ts ESB Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=316830255423&ref=ts ROTJ Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191796765221&ref=ts The Revisited Series Fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adywans-Star-Wars-Revisited-Series/298232097264?ref=ts Delete it or not, regardless Revisited is out there and it's already apart of history. JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes. And the same can be said for many edits on the Fan Edits website. I'm sure that a significant amount of effort went into creating this edit and others. That doesn't mean they are all of worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:But where other fanedits, including The Phantom Edit, just remove or rearrange existing footage in a movie, the Revisited edit(s) took fan edits to a whole new level by creating new effects and enhancing the movies visuals, which no other fan edit had done before in this way. It took the world of fan editing to a whole new level and therefore it is an important entry and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is very true many effects shots were enhance or replaced entirely. The audio was also enhanced further and remixed. Errors in continuity via audio and visual were fixed along with additions from the original Star Wars Radio drama was used in key places. New scenes were added without breaking the flow of the film and very much done with ILM like precision. Here's a picture list of comparisons from ANH Revisited:

http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/ANHRVisualComparison#. This is no mere fan edit, it is very much unique and sets a new precedent for fan edits everywhere. So it can't really be said tht Revisited is in the same catagory as other fan edit.

Delete as the nominator. I was holding off to see if anyone else was able to find more sourcing (I wasn't). This just isn't notable now. I understand the SPA's insistence that the edit is notable for creative reasons, but there are hundreds of Star Wars fan films out there. Phantom Edit drew some major attention from reliable secondary sources. This one hasn't. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If that's the case then Adywan himself belongs under these guidline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARTIST#Creative_professionals if not Star Wars Revisited as a stand alone achievement in cinematic art. Suggest deletion here which is fine however, the main point is that there are thousands of different people that know about him and his edit and appreciate it regardless of how "mainstream" it's been and that number increases. Especially with Empire Strikes Back Revisited scheduled to be released in 2011.JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see anything in that link that applies here. If you feel the creator is notable, feel free to create a Wikipedia page for him. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This edit is receiving coverage and another reliable secondary source reference to Adywan's edit has been added from a reputable magazine PC WORLD. The Phantom Edit only gained attention due to the distribution around Hollywood studios whereas this edit has gained major attention purely from word of mouth. To delete this entry would be wrong. But i agree that the article does need cleaning up a little Vizualeyez (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Star Wars Revisited and/or Adywan have been noted in:

a U.S. local newspaper, The Meridian Star
the documentary film The People v. George Lucas
an independent, professional blog website io9.com (itself with a Wikipedia article)
the international magazine PC World

Does that not suffice for it's inclusion in Wikipedia? IssueLips (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References in third-party sources are fleeting; product has not garnered significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in the Saints Row series[edit]

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

Gave a shot at improving this, this subject appears to only be covered in instruction manuals and WP:GAMEGUIDEs. No third party sources, no reception or impact. Fails WP:N and WP:V. For consensus on similar articles, look at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (2nd nomination) (deleted 2010-06)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era (deleted 2010-06)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in The Warriors (deleted 2010-06)

... which all show a community consensus that these kinds of video WP:GAMEGUIDE articles are inappropriate unless there are sources about the real-world impact of these fictional gangs. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. No objection to transwiki'ing it somewhere where it might fit better, but it doesn't belong here. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Claritas § 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a game guide. Real-world lists like this should also be deleted, they're full of shit. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:30, 18 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) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Delete - The very definition of WP:GAMECRUFT, and has no notability. There's a snowball's chance anything like this could survive. --Teancum (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsuitable on multiple levels, particularly WP:OR and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 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) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hélio Cunha[edit]

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

Primarily a WP:V problem, it's hard to say if there's also a WP:N problem. Lack of any coverage in Google News and the like makes it difficult for this article to pass the basic notability guideline. With respect to WP:ARTIST, which is more specific, there's no coverage that would confer the article notability on most of the points (the exhibitions have apparently not gotten coverage, etc.) with the exception of 4(d) "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". The article does claim inclusion in several galleries and museums, some of which are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but I other than the artist's web site, I haven't been able to find any verificiation for any of those claims. I did find one piece listed in a database of the collection of the Saramento museum ( http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.csarmento.uminho.pt/nephl_3152.asp%3Foffset%3D288&ei=2twaTIOJIovUNeTHzMsL&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ7gEwATgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522H%25C3%25A9lio%2BDomingues%2Bda%2BCunha%2522%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN ).

In general, however, I haven't figured out how to source nearly any statement in this article through reliable, secondary sources independent of the author, most of what's out there is essentially WP-mirrored, from the artist himself, or from information provided by the artist to galleries, etc. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced since August 2008 and notability is not clear since there seems to be no coverage by third-part sources. The piece listed in the database of Saramento Museum was offered by the painter himself, so I think we should not consider as a evidence of notability. Lechatjaune (talk) 12:57, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswind (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet music notability guidelines. Nakon 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, yes it does. As explained before the band is legit. They have discography, the have toured, they have merchandise, they are active and they meet the criteria. Please re-consider. I appreciate your assistance, thank you. Jason16a (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of references provided, but I'm seeing nothing that equates to significant independent coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG or evidence of how WP:BAND is met. Nuttah (talk) 20:48, 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 speedily deleted, patent nonsense, and blatant hoax, therefore vandalism. We still could use a real article here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian folk music[edit]

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

Looks pretty uncyclopedic to me. RussianReversal (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mongolian_music#Popular_folk_music.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect without prejudice to re-creation as above. The subject certainly merits an article. This text is patent nonsense and a blatant hoax --- Mongolian folk music, originally invented in 1997 by Al Sharpton and later streamlined by folk artist Jewel, is pretty sweet. It's kinda like Irish folk music, like Brian said, but in actuality it's closer to whatever it is that Matt says it's like. --- and it's apparently all that's ever been under this title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense vandalism article. Possibly speedy deletable under G3 or A1. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:55, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spade Kitty Records[edit]

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

This minor record label has lots of what appear to be bluelinks, but turn out to point to unrelated articles, disambig pages or are just plain name-dropping. As far as I can tell, only two bands signed to this label have articles, and they are of questionable notability. In any case, WP:MUSIC is silent on labels, so this article should be deleted by the standards of WP:CORP. I would have just prod-tagged it, but want to make sure the community agrees. Speciate (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company - fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Any claim to notability seems to be be one of inherited. Codf1977 (talk) 10:43, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi[edit]

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

There appear to be claims of notability, but as this is written so poorly it's really hard to tell. But no sources, and there are none that I can find using this name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot see much assertion of notability and certainly no evidence thereof is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article is near illegible but from what I can read it fits CSD A7. N/A 0 04:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything about the subject using Google … without any WP:RS it's just WP:OR. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Gavrylovych[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, has not competed at the top amateur level which would be World Figure Skating Championships. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would even accept a lower senior level championship such as the European Championships, but she has not even competed in that. -Drdisque (talk) 14:05, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Lodge-O'Meally[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gia Lodge-O'Meally

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

fails WP:ENT (1 role [40]) and WP:BIO. [41] nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Highly obscure, poorly covered Vartanza (talk) 12:20, 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Silverlight[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for notability Wikipedia:Notability (music). OK, this article needs to be wikified, and likely trimmed down a lot; but can any of it be kept? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few reasons. First, nothing in this article has any cites. Second, much of the notability is "inherited" - playing drums on various albums, touring as part of a band, etc. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Third, what would make him notable doesn't seem to be verifiable. For instance, the claims that he wrote "hundreds of pop songs broadcast on network TV shows" yet he only has four listed credits in IMDB. (And I realize IMDB is flawed but if he doesn't show up there, it's hard to argue that he's notable at all.) Getting inducted into a high school's hall of fame hardly counts as a "major music award." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, page Terry Silverlight has been much edited and wikified and references added. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has an Allmusic biography, a Drummerworld profile and All About Jazz reviews of his albums: [42], [43]. Still needs categorised and tidied though. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The principal author User:Fjwihjs has identified elsewhere as the subject of the article so there is a WP:COI concern. However I'd still say he has sufficient notability on the basis of the 3rd party publications cited above. AllyD (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 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) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable by Allmusic, etc. --doncram (talk) 19:58, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMAD Bikers Make A Difference Charity Fund Raiseres in Devon[edit]

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

Article untouched (other than by bots and taggers) since creation. Orphaned, badly written (and titled!), unwikified, non-notable organisation - well meaning for sure but not really worthy as it stands of a Wikipedia listing. Simple Bob (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSOAP.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 70.80. RussianReversal (talk) 02:49, 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) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Jennings[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article has remained unsourced for two and half years and a search came up with no sources to verify the information, as such notability is a concern as well. Note that if someone has better luck with actually finding reliable sources for verification I have no issues with withdrawing the nomination. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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) 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have played a significant role in the Civil War or in the history of Ohio. The only reference listed, and the only things I can find online, are genealogical in nature. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 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) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavior Abasi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Novel is self-published Lulu book. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious non-notable. None of their records have an article associated with them. No references at all, which don't back up any points. Possibly fits the CSD A7. Minima c (talk ) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of hits on google about xavior I have list just one from billboard that list his song "takin me higher" at #1 on the dance charts. Again, I do not understand why you desire to delete him, but there is reason for him to exist on wikipedia, his fans would appreciate it and he has many. reference http://www.billboard.com/news/dance-trax-735673.story#/news/dance-trax-735673.story Dirtthole (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I cannot find anything of substance about him. There are a couple of issues: first, per Wikipedia guidelines only individuals that meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability should have articles. That notability is defined in WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and must use reliable sources. Notability for this article has not been established using reliable sources. Second, this is not a fan site, if you wish to get his accomplishments out to his fans, a personally website is probably a better choice until he meets the notability criteria. Third, the reference you provided is not "non-trivial" coverage of the individual. It is only a very, very, very, brief mention of his name. ttonyb (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response how sad is it that because perhaps you have not heard of him or are not a "fan" and have the ability to delete you would make it your plight to remove the option of having a small piece of internet space. This is not a fight that i am willing to fight - if it will make you feel complete by exercising your power of deletion to rid this HUGE database of names of one person who we feel in the house community has made an impact, then be honored. There are many more battles worth fighting and this is not one of them 174.1.52.192 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suggest you re-read my message above. The deletion has nothing to do with me not knowing anything about him, but rather that nothing has been presented to validate the items in the article. Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable articles, not about allowing a someone to have a fan site. As I indicated above, there are better places to accomplish this. (i.e., a personal webpage). Unfortunately, the author of the article has the burden of providing adequate reliable sources that meet Wikipedia criteria. I am sorry to say that if you do not wish to participate in bringing the article up to standards, the article will most likely be deleted; however, if you have any specific questions as to what is needed for the article to meet Wikipedia criteria, please let me know on my talk page. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 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) 00:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When you have a statement like "Internationally known for his contributions in the dance music" without a citation, this is a red flag. Hard to find independent, reliable sources here. — Timneu22 · talk 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy on the Road[edit]

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

Contested redirect, contested prod. Fails both general and album notability criteria. Only reference is to the artists site, no reviews, no chart information, nothing to show notability. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paddy_on_the_Road" Created by ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first album of "Ireland's greatest living musician"[44] is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 June 2010
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 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) 00:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Debut album from renowned musician Christy Moore, of course this is notable. The article is poorly referenced but it took me mere seconds to find several references in the Irish press which I will add, an effort the nominator did not appear to undertake. --Canley (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean GB fan of course, who started the AfD based on a talk page comment. --Canley (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - début album from Christy Moore & very well-known indeed. He's basically considered the Irish Bob Dylan - Alison ^❤ 07:04, 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Shot[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find in reliable sources is a passing mention here. No significant coverage found for this demo; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:37, 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) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Don Fury Sessions[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uber non notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this demo; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:38, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Zero (album)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is a passing mention, but I'm finding zero significant coverage for this demo in reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:34, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Groove (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 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) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:19, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Funky Precedent[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 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) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:19, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen: Louder[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 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) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Aside from a suggestion to userfy, there's no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farsley AFC[edit]

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

non league football team with no indication of notability. Yet to play a game! Recreated from a speedy delete. noq (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Team has been accepted into the Northern Counties East Football League ([45]) for the 2010-11 season, a level for which most other teams have an article. Does require expansion--Pretty Green (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - They've been admitted into the Northern Counties East Football League and teams there are deemed notable for inclusion (due to the clubs entering both the FA Cup and FA Vase). However, they haven't played a game in that division yet but will be in August, hence why I go for userfy rather than keep or delete. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pretty Green. While userfy is a good idea, it just seems like a load of hassle for the sake of six weeks or whatever it is. Giant Snowman 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article will need moving to Farsley A.F.C., as per WP:FOOTY naming conventions. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep team have been accepted into a notable league Eldumpo (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like another over-officious AfD Eliteimp (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little harsh a comment. It's worth while the editor listing if he or she is uncertain as to its notability! --Pretty Green (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clubs at this level get articles. That the team hasn't yet played a match is irrelevant; that there are several reliable sources attesting to its existence is. Ravenswing 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club starts playing in three weeks time and their first league match is six weeks off. All other teams in the league have a page. The page is linked from their predecessor club (Farsley Celtic), providing the information that a replacement club is in existence.User:Chris Dunford-Kelk (talk) 23:55, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time & Space – A Tribute to Yasunori Mitsuda[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Movementarian (Talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 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) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:20, 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) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of Sega[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--^Nilotpal42 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 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) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-notable fan project. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:31, 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) 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Majestic Mix: The Trance Album[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 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) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JANNFP. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:38, 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) 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Majestic Mix: A Tribute to Nobuo Uematsu[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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 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) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:20, 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) 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Industries[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: upgraded from PROD as good work has gone into the article since the PROD was added, though it wan't technically contested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the references in the article don't even mention the company. One of the references briefly mentions Sandbox in a video, and this one mentions them in passing. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, but I'm not very familiar with business press coverage. I would normally say delete given the lack of sources, but I think I'll hold off a few days to see if anyone can find more independent sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:46, 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) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient reliable sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a new business incubator and early-stage venture capital business: some guys with a portfolio. Nothing indicates that this business has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 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) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Buddhist Remix[edit]

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

Article relates to a discontinued version of Ubuntu. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so it doesn't comply with the WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calling this distro "discontinued" is on par with claiming that Red Hat and Ubuntu are discontinued distros. What the article suffers from, is that nobody has updated the changes in name, focus, and releases --- even when they refer to it in other Wikipedia articles. jonathon (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying Zenix was discontinued, merely the Ubuntu Buddhist Remix has been. The distos aren't the same - for example Zenix contains a large number of Buddhist related Firefox bookmarks, but doesn't contain scriptural study tools. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not finding any sources, and that's a requirement to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also find no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:35, 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) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable record producer. Fails WP:NM as the subject lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 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, 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) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cjc13 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERNOM. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:38, 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. — Scientizzle 19:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Foenander[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE as a broadcaster. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 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, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'm not overly familiar with the Sri Lankan broadcasting industry, but I'd imagine that having a #1 with the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is good enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, band has been on top lists and there's a little coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there isn't substantial coverage of this WP:BLP subject then I don't see why we should be making any exceptions to policy. Sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources is lacking!! Fix it or it goes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per JBSupreme's comment re sourcing. --Sarah 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth coverage of the subject, just passing mentions therefore fails the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:45, 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) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Hayat Khan[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements (BIO) and as the article has been flagged as needing sources for over a year, there seems little prospect of this being improved in the near future. The Tamgha-e-Imtiaz may be sufficient as evidence of notability based on winning an award if this were sourced (and linked correctly). Fæ (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 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, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - here's a non-independent biography of him at the website of a hospital he founded - [46]. As far as I can see, his accomplishments in his fields would normally make him meet the inclusion criteria, but much of the article seems to be original research, and the lack of any coverage in independent sources is a major concern. Claritas § 21:22, 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) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A reliable source for the [Tamgha-e-Imtiaz]] would almost certainly change my mind, I found a doc that appears to be a list of notable alumni from Army Burn Hall, but it itself points to our WP entry, undercutting any sense that I have that it's reliable. I've tried searching on varieties of the award in English and Urdu to try and find a coherent list of such winners, and haven't succeeded--but then, I don't speak Urdu. No reliable, independent, secondary sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEDE (American Band)[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Looks pretty clearly non-notable to me, per WP:MUSIC. No albums etc, just a catfood commercial and some pretty marginal stuff. Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, rename to Dede (American band) per MOS:CAPS 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 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, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; I'm not sure how notable this is, but it's something (and it is sourced!): Their music was featured in a psychedelic national Friskies commercial the aired initially during the Winter Olympics of 2010. — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 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) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Shit and Die[edit]

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

Non-notable split LP with a redlink artist. Google shows nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about this better search? Venetian Snares are certainly notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Notability still applies and none of these is substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS. SnottyWong confer 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found; appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (post close comment) I'm kicking myself right now. I forgot I was the nominator because I did it on behalf of someone else. However, since I was neutral I'll leave it closed. If someone want's to reopen it then be my guest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flame (Johnny Duhan album)[edit]

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

Completing on behalf of User:24.4.101.72. I remain neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page

Deletion rationale - This is an epic fail of general and album notability criteria. The only "references" are to sales sites and/or the artist site. The tone of the article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and appear to reflect the article author's opinions more than anything else. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs tidying up, but this is an officially released album by a notable artist. Johnny Duhan's Allmusic entry refers to Flame as an "impressive" collection of songs. I believe that WP:NALBUMS is satisfied here. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:34, 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) 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has information and isn't a stub.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I basically agree with Bruce1ee above, though my vote is "weak" because there is not much else to go on. Regardless, this article could be an acceptable album stub. The original commenter is correct about how the article in too opinion-based and not very encyclopedic, but that's not a good reason for deletion in itself. Bad prose can be removed or corrected. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 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. Brandon (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Klassik[edit]

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

I can't tell whether this is an article about a person or a group as it keeps changing from singular to plural, but either way there seems to be no real notability. Mixtapes are not generally notable, and the discography is only one mixtape - with executive producer credits - and the rest looks like incidental music. The references don't seem to mention the artist/group, and are mostly blogs. I42 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this article exists multiple times, so I am adding these dups to the nomination:

I42 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 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) 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete I've definitely heard of these guys for a couple of years now. I believe they produced Joe Budden's album, a bunch of Heavy Hitter's Mixtapes and done a whole bunch of stuff for BET and MTV. I know for certain that Bobby is the song of Robert_L._Gordon_III...don't know about the other cat in the crew.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.255.56 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete Most notably, they did the music for that national education commercial for City Year to combat the dropout crisis....how is this an issue still?! I feel like they went through this notability stuff when they were established as producers 3 years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.65.168 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in independent sources. making music for adds, mixtapes and incidental music does not notable make. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete There are independent sources. Making music for network television shows, movies and major artists DOES make for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldfire (talk • contribs) 18:12, 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) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnyard[edit]

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

Similar to the Paint Crew, this does not seem to be a notable student section. Excluding their official website and the school's, I cannot seem to find a reliable third-party source. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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) 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable student section... really? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:39, 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.