Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 22

< 21 June	23 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 Speedy deleted G11, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digi makeover[edit]

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

No claims for notability of this game, no sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this does not need to have been brought to AfD. andy (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no speedy delete criterion for games. Spam, nonsense and vandalism do not apply to this article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheese (producer)[edit]

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

Notability. Janet Jackson part may be hoax. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson part so no hoax (have posted response with images to Marcus' page), however that part of the article has been removed in case the story and pictures submitted are not enough "evidence" of the event of me as a production assistant purchasing a towel.

Are Internet Movie Database links not sufficient evidence for Producing credits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheesefeed (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability. Nakon 00:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nakon. User:Thecheesefeed appears to be the subject of the article per this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not a shred of notability, not to mention obvious COI. Majorclanger (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted, irrelevant BLP material, ELs to unreliable sources, COI... let me count the reasons it's not ready for Wikipedia yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards Nation[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. This manga does not show notability by WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published in a notable manga magazine, they believing it notable, and a far better judge than us. Four collections/volumes published so far. Dream Focus 03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The not inherited bit means being related to someone famous doesn't make you famous. That has nothing to do with things like this. A manga series is notable if it is published by a major manga magazine for a time. Dream Focus 12:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga serialized in it. And WP:V, which is derived from a quote by Wikipedia's founder Jimbo, is very clear that if a topic does not have any coverage by reliable third-party sources, it should not have an article. —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that "notability" from the perspective of a magazine has no bearing on "notability" from our perspective - their only concern is whether the series appears successful/popular, and neither of those is an automatic ticket to inclusion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "they believing it notable, and a far better judge than us," if publishers could accurately predict what is or is not going to catch on, there would be no need for remainder stores. There are products from all industries that aren't notable, because they sink like a stone despite the companies' best efforts. And, in fact, we are the better judges, because we have hindsight, which is always better than a guess beforehand. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent coverage by reliable third-party source. Article is fundamentally a plot summary with almost no real-world context. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE Being serialized in a magazine does not make something notable. —Farix (t | c) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail both WP:BK & the GNG. No relevant coverage found. No licensor found in English, French, German, Spanish & Italian. For a work dating back from 2007, the scanlation has just begun and is at vol. 1 chap 3. It is not a source of big excitement with the fandom. --KrebMarkt 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears in a notable publication, but that doesn't mean this particular manga is notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCore[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by a SPA representing the company. I have not found significant coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet another "content management system". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SPA junk. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:19, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Barracuda[edit]

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

Non-notable British University American Football team. Sports teams at British University are rarely notable on their own campus never mind in the rest of the world. This team does not appear to one of the mere handful of exceptions to this rule. A google for the team returns nothing beyond sites related directly to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and reliable sources it seems unlikely that it will be possible to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indpendent sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not appear to be one of those few British university sports teams that actually meet our notability criteria. Pfainuk talk 06:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 28 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. any editorial merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Academy (comics)[edit]

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

Article was prodded due to lack of 3rd party references. I thought it better dealt with at AfD. Artw (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:BEFORE. It recommends improvement before deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —--moreno oso (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the concern is that there are no third-party references (and thus significant coverage in independent sources) available. ~~Any non-cruft content can be merged with another X-men article.~~ Claritas § 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that "delete but merge the content" is not available as an option due to our licensing. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean "merge and redirect" . I don't see anything which isn't fancruft, so straight deletion is probably the best option. Claritas § 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria. This is a well developed article whose topic has appeared for 29 years in the Uncanny X-Men fictional world. A compendium on either X-Men or Marvel Comics can supply the reliable sources needed for this article. Then, the subject gets ghits which means that the more reliable and verifiable URLs should be added as secondary sources or citations. While notability is not transferred, Marvel Comics and X-Men are notable. Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Criteria applies as X-Men have appeared in book form which is a subcat of this AfD. Therefore, by knowing that Marvel Comics and X-Men are notable, deriative works or terms that merit an article that would not fit into the main article because it is a large topic, are also presumed to be notable by NBooks Criteria #1, #3 and #5. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Fictional notability does not meet real notability.
Non-independent sources cannot be used to substantiate notability - see WP:N
The fact that we can't fit all the information into the main X-men article suggests that there's way too much trivial plot summary here of no encylopaedic value at all.
Also, you might like to read that any argument based on Ghits is generally frowned upon

You're mistaken. Claritas § 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per moreno oso. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PROD'er recommends a merge, so there are no current editors arguing for deletion. Minor but longstanding element of a large notable fictional universe. No opposition to editorial merge, but this AfD is not necessary at this point. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user who put the prod on this article also put the prod on another comic book article on Liz Allan to which just removed becaused the article does meet the notability requirements. He was nominating it for deletion for the same reason on this article. I did explain he could explain himself on a certain talk page but he hasn't responded so I feel like he is just randomly putting prods on certain articles. As for this article itself I do agree with moreno oso. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:31, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Genesis Theory[edit]

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

Non-notable theory and original research. this edit by the OP pretty much admits to this fact anyway. Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "This theory was conceived by the Crumax group as a viable alternative to common Creationist and Evolution theories." Umm, yeah. --B (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article's author, User:Crumax, "This theory was conceived by the Crumax group as a viable alternative to common Creationist and Evolution theories." That's pretty well "OR" in a nutshell. Mandsford 20:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fringe stuff on both theological grounds and scientific grounds. Looks like original research. Delete per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks more like a hoax to me than anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research is too kind a description. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear OR, no evidence of notability for this theory. I don't believe a speedy criteria fits this, though the COI between a theory propogated by the "Crumax Group" and a user named "Crumax" cannot be ignored. Borderline promotional, perhaps? Speedy if possible, delete normally otherwise. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the title "Pre-Genesis Theory" a useful redirect to something else? Seems generic enough to have been referenced somewhere, outside of the whole Crumax thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, 5th millennium BC ought to get it...Mandsford 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mention of this theory outside this article. OR. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 23:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response We have tried to avoid 'vanity' previously, but if credit is required then so be it if it is not mentioned anywhere else on the net. Why cannot any original thought be produced on Wikipedia as an outlet anyway? What if Wikipedia is the author's/researcher's preferred medium? We are a philosophical, engineering and artistic group - not a hoax or intended to be promotional in any way. We have met obstruction before in a variety of areas and on various sites by 'restricting knowledge and facts' simply because what we released did not fit in with "site dogma". Crumax 16:12, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Wikipedia should not be any researcher's "preferred medium", as it is an encyclopedia, and not a publisher of original research. Take a look at those links for more information as to what this project is about. If your theory gains traction, and can be verified through reliable sources, then someone will inevitably write an article about it. Until then, there are other Wikis, like CreationWiki, which may have less stringent inclusion criteria. To be clear, the objection to your article here is not about the nature of the content, but the simple fact that your theory is not yet notable or verifiable. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Just bear in mind that because something is not published previously or non-verifiable on the internet, does not mean that it does not 'exist' or is not noteworthy and doing the rounds within other intellectual circles. We could have over time, just as many have done on Wikipedia and cleverly via extended contacts, set up a number of seemingly non-associated blogs, websites, inclusions on virtual publications, et al for 'vanity' and ego stroking purposes, and successfully evaded your detection. Naturally, we would never do this, but many thousands of people have and will continue to do so for a 'verifiable inclusion' on Wikipedia. The Pre-Genesis Theory had been proposed years ago (by us), 'is' known but surprisingly unpublished "until now" (or a failed attempt to do so by ourselves). If you looked at the history, we avoided credit of any kind initially. We assumed Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a virtual book of real knowledge), and do not consider the Pre-Genesis Theory as original research but probably more 'original thought' (or, it was), with an appropriate title attached to that thought. By the methods we described above, simply another can falsely claim credit for this theory (under another name most possibly) and acquire approved inclusion, whereas Wikipedia will reject us - the true 'authors', yet accept and acknowledge them, despite the evidence temporarily existing now through these interactions. Hardly an encyclopedia for the 'true facts' if that were the case. I am hoping then, at the very least, we can stipulate milestones and achievements in a concise manner (facts, to us) on our User Wiki page.Crumax 12:31, 25 June 2010 (BST)
Yes, Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, and that's precisely why it doesn't publish original research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which reflects what other (secondary) sources have published about people, things, events, etc. Mere existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia (if it were, I could write an article about my toe). The required criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia include notability (not noteworthiness - it must have actually been noted, not just be worthy of being so), supported by multiple reliable secondary sources - ie the subject must have been written about elsewhere. If you can get your theory noted in multiple reliable sources, then you can have an encyclopedia article about it here. But until then, you can't. Also, you say "We could have over time [...] set up a number of seemingly non-associated blogs, websites, inclusions on virtual publications". That would not have got you in Wikipedia, because blogs, your own websites, vanity sites, self-publications, etc, are not accepted sources - we need newspapers, journals, books published by commercial publishers, etc. For some guidance on what kinds of sources you need to get your theory noted by, please see WP:RS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the reason that there's a policy against original research is that, if there weren't, everyone would want to write articles about their own theories, insights, philosophies, etc. The price of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that there have to be boundaries. It's nothing personal, Crumax. Mandsford 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Since it has been put across like that, fair comment. You are just trying to maintain a form of consistency and 'quality' on your site. A point was slightly misunderstood though - we were in fact referring to 'independent' sources which in fact were really not so, which was our point (probably not really highlighted well - note "seemingly non-associated" and "et al"). If you had inside information within certain scientific, engineering and medical circles say, you would understand why we state this (yes, certain 'influential' people and organizations do manipulate to such levels in order to gain credence). We as a group would never employ such tactics, naturally.Crumax 12:18, 26 June 2010 (BST)

I wish it were "my site", but you and I are equal when it comes to our right to contribute. I know that there are some people who brag about being "experienced Wikipedians", as if that were some type of achievement, and then feel that it gives them a reason to talk down to newcomers. To the extent that I've done that, my apologies. It does take a little bit of time to find out what's okay and what's not, and mostly it's a matter of figuring out whether to place information in its own article, or to weave it into existing pages. Generally, there's a good reason for most of the do's and don't(s). Mandsford 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WP:OR. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. Once items are published elsewhere, the rules are different, of course. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian supremacy[edit]

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

This article is a completely unsourced piece on what someone considers to be "Christian supremacy". The borderline worthwhile parts of it are covered in Dominionism. The rest of it is just a laundry list of things about Fundamentalist Christianity that the author disagrees with. For example, did you know that "Christian supremacy" is the reason that we as a society reject scientific inquiry into "child sexuality"? Really? The article makes up two definitions of "Christian supremacy" then simply gives a laundry list of things it thinks probably apply to one of those definitions. I suggest delete this article, then redirect the title to Dominionism, which more than adequately covers the topic and has the added benefit of being an actual term. B (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A holdover from Wikipedia's early days when sourcing was considered a bother. I was trying to read the article on Dominionism. Maybe someone will try to write a version of it in English. Mandsford 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure POV. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling finds the term used generically to mean all kinds of things, and there doesn't seem to be any specific subject by that name that would make an encyclopedic article. The current article seems to be too much of an essay, covering a mixed bag of issues loosely connected with the term -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete most of the content. This definitely refers to a clearly existent historical philosophy, but this article is not a good coverage of it. Dominionism seems to be mostly a US thing. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 00:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boing! said Zebedee and WP:OR. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irredeemably WP:POV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The article is nothing but one lengthy article of WP:OR and WP:POV.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Rios[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. All sources are primary, and he isn't a featured "character" on WWE television. Nikki♥311 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It amazes me that it survived the first deletion nomination! Wait, no it doesn't. :( JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an un-notable person that probably the only reason he has a page is because he is signed to WWE.--Curtis23's Us al ions 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable physician. Appearing in the background of a TV programme occasionally is not the same thing as notablility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Floor Interactive[edit]

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

I believe this may fail notability requirements regarding organisations. It was saved from CSD because of "two Ohio Interactive Awards in 2010" - however I am unsure as to whether this equates notability, as these awards are just for the best company website in 2010 in Ohio. This does not strike me as that notable, and I seek consensus at AfD. Negative g-hits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete hardly any coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards for website design do not confer notability on the company as a whole. Loves Macs (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their website winning a comparitively minor award doesn't help them meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republican communism[edit]

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

This appears to be an essentially made up concept, or a neologism not in common circulation. Other than references to "red republican communism" by Marx which are unrelated to Ireland, the only references I can find to "republican communism" in relation to Ireland are the use of the phrase in a letter by Irish government official Thomas J. Coyne in the 1940s, and a quote from Fortnightly in 1933 saying "but now open to all males of good character who are prepared to pledge themselves to resist Republican-Communism". I can find no modern usage of the term, and certainly no sources that apply it to the organisations listed in the article. O Fenian (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't make sense. Using the definition at republicanism (the head of state is not hereditary), just how many communist countries aren't "republican"? Even the Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China is the People's Republic of China. Any communist organization in the US would be "republican" unless they are planning to install a monarchy. This article really makes no sense. --B (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found where the article creator got this from, it is in the Dictionary Of Public Administration: "Republican communism is a variant of republicanism that advocates independent communist states in countries such as Ireland and Scotland."[2] But it's only a definition, so hardly adequate basis for an article. Fences&Windows 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Forget that, that book was written in 2007 so plainly takes its definition from Wikipedia; using that as a source would be factlaundering. Fences&Windows 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, if anyone wants to write an article on Irish republicanism and socialism, there'd be plenty of sources. Fences&Windows 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. TFD (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many of the groups listed are based in reality on extended families, and my copy of The Communist Manifesto says "Workers of the world unite" on the title page. You can't unite and be independent at the same time.Red Hurley (talk) 17:58, 28 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, nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love (2008 Indonesian film)[edit]

Withdraw - Article now has references to assert notability and has been expanded into a useful encyclopedia entry. DiiCinta (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can find no siginificant coverage in reliable sources to assert that this film passes GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (films). Although there may be Indonesian language references that could assert notability, but my Indonesian is far too limited to find them. DiiCinta (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the last AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - The last AFD resulted in a keep based upon a section of WP:NF that has since changed ("The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country"). This was the sole argument used in the last AFD however it is now different in WP:NF. So how can you base your keep vote on the last AFD? DiiCinta (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current policy is "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited". This article clearly does not currently satisfy the criteria. DiiCinta (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NF. To support its arguments toward keep, the last AFD also included reference to a lengthy review in Jakata Post. I note it is also covered in Sinar Harapan, and the award-winning filmmaker and his works is covered in multiple sources over multiple years.[3] Appears to meet WP:GNG, and notability in Indonesia is notable enough for en.Wikipedia if sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I was quite surpised at how short the stub was, I expanded it from one sentence[4] to THIS and began adding sources. Surmountable issues are reasons to address those issues... not to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now gone from a 9 word unsourced stub to a 303 word sourced article... a 33.7x expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Per the fine improvement by MQS (though the film was worth an article no matter its previous state). Notable personnel, mainstream coverage, obviously notable in Indonesian cinema. We should really be bending over backwards to prevent Anglo-centric biased coverage. It's too bad so many editors are less concerned with preventing bias than with strictly following the letter of guidelines made up by those same editors... Dekkappai (talk) 06:01, 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical linguistics[edit]

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

Also bundled are:

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

No change in notability or references since 2006, but the subarticles have been recreated.

Previous nominations include those in the box, and:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicogse (Result: Delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computational Cognition (Result: No consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang's Scientific Research Institute (Result: Delete)

The result of the boxed nominations were: No consensus with the editiorial decision being made to merge to Physical linguistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long comment by User:Computationalverb

Firstly, the notability measured by SCI—the so called (Stupid Chinese Index) and other indexes alike is not convinced. I don’t agree to judge things by using logic like this:

IF it is not A THEN it is not B, where A!=B

Some example of this logic is:

If it is not published in popular journal, then it is not notable.
If it is not an SCI paper, then it is not notable.

etc.

And I will respect to the following logic:

IF it is not notable (because: give your constructive evaluation of what you are talking about from your first-hand reading, investigation, etc. No second-hand impression and imagination) THEN it is not notable.

Why, take example of Grigori Perelman, who declined his Fields Medal, and who I think to be a very notable, noble and pure academic researcher, published his (VERY) notable work in arXiv, which is not a book, a journal, nor a conference proceeding!

Secondly, I don’t think we should judge notability of scientific research based on superficial illusion of how popular a topic is. Many things are very important and yet, not many people know. It is especially true in many HARD scientific researches because hard problems are difficult to become popular comparing soft problems. Therefore, I don’t trust the judgment of experts, who are working in Field Z, to Field A. Unless someone comes and claims: Hi, I had read that work, and I found the mathematical formula is not right, or, it against physical laws, ect.

Thirdly, I don't think that the notability is not changed since 2006. I have done my first-hand researches on this topic on academic database worldwide, not just take a look at the first few pages of Google and jump into my conclusions. Independent researchers in different Universities had been published, a few example is listed as follows.
- PHD Dissertation(2009): W.M. Chen, Study and Experiment of Real-time Control and Strategies Planning for Small-size Soccer Robot Systems, Shanghai University,(in Chinese, database entry http://www.lunwentianxia.com/product.sf.3973985.1/ ). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “The computation verb theory iS combined with the region reconnaissance method to solve the difficulty associated with real．time image acquisition in the small—size soccer robot system．Through matching robot marks，resolving similarity，and decomposing computation verb into a‘low verb’and a‘column verb’．the real．time system computation，as well as the accuracy and stability of image information acquisition under the non．unifoITn illumination condition are greatly improved，laid a solid foundation for path planning research”.
- Master thesis(2009): M. Smit, Interactive Narrative Generation using Computational Verb Theory, University of Pretoria/Universiteit van Pretoria, MSc , Computer Science.(in English, contact University of Pretoria for pdf version) The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): "Interactive narrative extends traditional story-telling techniques by enabling previously

passive observers to become active participants in the narrative events that unfold. A variety of approaches have attempted to construct such interactive narrative spaces and reconcile the goals of interactivity and dramatic story-telling. With the advent of the linguistic variable in 1972, a means was established for modelling natural language words and phrases mathematically and computationally. Over the past decade, the computational verb, first introduced in 1997, has been developed as a mathematical means of modelling natural language verbs in terms of dynamic systems, and vice versa. Computational verb theory extends the initial concept of the linguistic variable beyond being able to model adjectives, nouns, and passive states, into the realm of actions as denoted by natural language verbs. This thesis presents the framework and implementation of a system that generates interactive narrative spaces from narrative text. The concept of interactive narrative is introduced and recent developments in the area of interactive narrative are discussed. Secondly, a brief history of the development of the linguistic variable and the computational verb are provided. With the context of the computational verb (interactive) narrative generation (CVTNG) system presented, the underlying theoretical principles of the system are established. The CVTNG system principles are described in terms of fuzzy set, computational verb, and constraint satisfaction theory. The fuzzy set, computational verb, and constraint satisfaction principles are organised according to a CVTNG architecture. The CVTNG architecture is then described in terms of its subsystems, structures, algorithms, and interfaces. Each CVTNG system component is related to the overall design considerations and goals. A prototype of the CVTNG system is implemented and tested against a suite of natural language sentences. The behaviour and performance of the CVTNG system prototype are discussed in relation to the CVTNG system’s design principles. Results are calculated and stored as variable values that are dynamically and generically associated with representational means, specifically computer graphics, to illustrate the generation of interactive narrative spaces. Plans for future work are discussed to show the immense development potential of this application. The thesis concludes that the CVTNG system provides a solid and extendable base for the intuitive generation of interactive narrative spaces from narrative text, computational verb models, and freely associated media.

Keywords: computational verb theory, fuzzy sets, interactive narrative, computational linguistics, constraint satisfaction problems, fuzzy constraint satisfaction problems, computer graphics."

- Master thesis(2010): Y. Guo, Research on Computational Verb Theory and Its Applications, Xiamen University. (in Chinese, ask for pdf from the author ). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “Natural languages are invented by human beings for general-purpose commu- nication, moreover, are the most comprehensive, °exible and adaptive tools for modeling the physical and the cognitive world. Scientists and scholars have been striving for making them measurable for years. Computational verb theory (CVT) is a new paradigm of making natural languages measurable. As an emerging dis- cipline, CVT has been applied in well-established ¯elds such as automatic control and arti¯cial intelligence and etc. Moreover, it has been utilized by many indus- trial systems, for instance, visual °ame-detecting, intelligent tra±c system and intelligent security system. Therefore, it's worthwhile to make an intensive study of CVT. In this thesis, CVT is studied from three aspects; namely, computational verb events, computational verb neural networks and computational verb PID con- trollers, which not only promotes CVT's development by taking the advantage of existing results but also adds new dimensions to probability theory, arti¯cial neu- ral networks and the PID controllers to some extent. This thesis proposes a new method of deriving the probability of computational verb events, gives the struc- ture of type-I generalized computational verb neural network and the derivation of its learning algorithm, studies three types of the second-generation computational verb PID controllers in details. The innovations of the thesis are listed as follows. 1. For the ¯rst time, it introduces the concept of computational verb observation function , which makes the modeling of computational verb events and the measurement of probabilities more °exible and convenient; 2. The proposed computational verb neural networks are suitable for learning mul- tiple verb rules; 3. Two types of computational verb PID controllers based on trend-based compu- tational verb similarities are designed; 4. It is the ¯rst comprehensive study on the signal tracking performance of com- putational verb PID controllers.

Keywords: computational verb theory; probability; arti¯cial neural network; PID controller"

- Master thesis(2010): W. Tang, Research and Design of Microscopic IC Photo Auto-taking System, Xiamen University. (in Chinese, ask for pdf from the author ). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “As the development of Science Technology, chips have been playing an important role in our life and work. IC Reverse Engineering, a way to study advanced IC designing technology, has been especially concerned. Taking IC layout images under microscope and image matching ensure the success of IC Reverse Engineering. As the expansion of chip size, it is necessary to reverse automatically to improve its efficiency. Our work is to design such a system, Microscopic IC Photo Auto-taking System. It solves such problems as carema auto-focusing, motion controlling, image matching and so on, for IC Reverse Engineering. Thus, it improves its efficiency dramatically. In this paper, we firstly introduce the basic principle of auto-focusing. After analyzing the traditional auto-focusing algorithms, we put forward an optimizing operator for all auto-focusing algorithms, to meet different kinds of requirement. Secondly, we design a set of computational verb rules based on computational verb theory, and we call it verb controller. We also design a model amending algorithm for this controller. All these improve the system's working efficiency and robustness. Thirdly, we explain the principle of image matching and image fusion, and design an algorithm based on threshold to remove the mismatching-points during image matching. After these, we propose the whole design proposal for our system, and divide it into modules. Finally, we show the manual of our system, testing examples and its performance. The characteristics and innovations of the platform designed in this thesis are as follows: 1) In order to judge whether an image is clear or not, we propose an optimizing operator for all auto-focusing algorithms. This operator improves the performance of different auto-focusing algorithms obviously, without increasing the computation time. 2) Based on computational verb theory, we design a verb controller made up of a set of computational verb rules, for stepper motor to control the process of auto-focusing. It cuts down the time spent on auto-focusing dramatically. It can also enhance the system robustness. 3) According to the basic model of auto-focusing, we design a model amending algorithm for this controller. it not only makes the verb controller independent of environment, but also ensures the ability of self-learning and self-adaptive for our system. 4) According to the distribution of image matching points, we bring foward a mismatching-pionts removing algorithm based on threshold, to solve the mismatching problem of the image matching algorithms. It makes our system more accurate.

Key Words: Auto-focusing; Computational Verb; Image Matching"

- Master thesis(2006): S. Zhu, Automatic Generation Control Based on Verb Control, Tongji University. (in Chinese, databse entry at http://67.20.95.55/view-34436-1.html). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “Computational verb theory is a kind of computer digital control which is based on the verb set theory,the verb variant and the verb logical inference．It is a realization which is based on the knowledge，even the controlling rules described by language．The basic principal of computational verb control is similar to the fuzzy logic．According to the expert experience and the correlative knowledge，a few IF．．．．．．THEN verb rules are proposed and make up of the description of the verb relation which has uncertain complex obj ect，and the optimized control parameters are computed by the inference of the verb rules，and then the system is well controlled． Automatic Generation Control(AGC)in power system is discussed in this paper． Conventional AGC is a procedure which is aproportional integral(PI)contr01．That is to say,Area Control Error(ACE)is controlled which is followed by PI control and ACE is defined as a linear combination of system frequency error and the sum of errors of interchange of power between diferent areas or either of them．After studying the classic theory of AGC，the deficiency of conventional AGC control model is analyzed and this paper introduces V-erb control of intelligent control into PI control to formulate Vrerb PI contr01．And then it is used in the second adjustment of the AGC．The control structure of AGC is improved and the dynamics of control results become beter．

Key Words：verb control，intelligent control，PI controller,automatic generation control，area control error"

- Master thesis(2008): L. Zhu, Research of MAS and Modeling Methods in RoboCup3D Simulation, Shanghai University. (in Chinese, databse entry at http://202.120.121.238:8002/xwlw/outline.jsp?page=49&channelid=65194). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “...Based on Computational Verb Theory, an opponent modeling method for RoboCup has been presented. Fuzzy generalization is used to design the computational verb controller, by which the model of extent of opponent’s controlling ability can be obtained to estimate opponent on-line. Based on the above research, a RoboCup3D simulation team is designed with OOP method and this team has been validated in the competition of China RoboCup . "

- Master thesis(2006): C. Yu, Vision System Processing of Robot Soccer, Changchun University of Science and Technology. (in Chinese, databse entry at http://www.lunwentianxia.com/product.sf.3417857.1/). The following is cut and paste from the abstraction from the pdf file of this dissertation(This is a proof that I had read it): “... key words: Global vision ... Computational verb"

- Master thesis(2008): J. Li, Research and Application of Computational Verb PID Controller of Linear Motor, Kunming University of Science and Technology. (in Chinese, databse entry at http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&safe=strict&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Azh-CN%3Aofficial&q=%22%E8%AE%A1%E7%AE%97%E5%8A%A8%E8%AF%8DPID%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E5%99%A8%E5%9C%A8%E7%9B%B4%E7%BA%BF%E7%94%B5%E6%9C%BA%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E7%9A%84%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%22&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). The title can tell you everything about it, I am tired of cut and paste at this point. Let me give you one more before I close this section of waste of my time.

- Master thesis(2009):, F. Chen, 电力营销系统中需电量预测的设计与实现,

UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA(in Chinese, download .doc file from http://202.115.24.25/tasi/papers/checked/master/10614_200792310014%B3%C2%B7%BC%E9%AA_2003.DOC ) I appologize if you don't understand Chinese, however, you just go to page 6 to read the following. "Abstract: With the deepening of institutional reform in electricity industry and fierce competition from outside uncertainties, managerial expertise and decision-making capabilities have become increasingly essential for domestic electricity company leaders. Meanwhile, it requires more accurate and timely information. Therefore, a comprehensive and unified information system that can operate on different platforms and transfer real-time data has been a trend of information-based industrial development. In the process of the informational construction of electric power industry, there is a massive volume of historical data lack of adequate utilization to offer substantial support for the decision-making of electric power enterprises. Based on the investigation and practices of many electric power corporations, this dissertation presents a new method of using computational verb theory (CVT) in electric power marketing. Subspace-based Multi-Dimensional classification algorithm is used in data preprocessing to ensure data optimization and reduce CVT computational complexity. With its excellent non-linear character, CVT is competent for non-linear processing, and predicting methods based on CVT are good for non-linear problems. The experiment results indicate that CVT model has good predicting effects in electric power distribution.

Keywords: power marketing, computational verb theory, forecast technology, data preprocessing, data collecting"

Check IEEE database for other relevant papers by yourself. Just like the researches of fuzzy "something" is most likely directly or indirectly related to its brain father Professor Lotfi A. Zadeh, it is difficult to by-pass the connection to the pioneer of this field if one publish a work. Of course, at this stage it is difficult to distinguish self-promotion from originality. If one suggests to delete it based on this concern, it should be justified.

Finally, if someone comes up to me with the following logic: “IF I don’t understand Chinese THEN Chinese references are not notable,” sure, sir, delete everything listed here. I am more than happy to agree with you though I think that history will prove that you are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Computationalverb (talk • contribs)

(as nominator) If that's the best the article creator than do, then Delete all. Few independent references, none in survey articles. Little publication in peer-reviewed journals, almost all by Yang. In all fairness, the article creator doesn't understand Wikipedia policies, so it may be that that there is evidence of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - clearly a walled garden; no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, so fails WP:NOTE. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of the sources directly relevant to any of these articles appear to have been credibly subjected to any kind of peer review. "Yang's Scientific Press" is apparently the vehicle for Tao Yang to self-publish his own books, as well as his own articles and those of his friends. WP:SELFPUB should be applied judiciously here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As pointed out above: WP:NOTE, WP:SELFPUB. Moreover: if this stuff were implementable according to some rigorous spec derived from the open literature, and clearly able to do what's claimed for it, there would (after all these years) be some code for the relevant algorithms available in open source. I can't find any. All I see is "source code" downloads available only from Yang's site. Those downloads might only be wrapping the core algorithms in a DLL. Meaning that if the image recognition (NSFW!) at Yang's site is actually being done with the software you can supposedly download from Yang's site (beware, .exe files!), there's still the possibility that it's using garden-variety image processing and computer vision techniques, under the hood, lightly reformulated into "computational verb" terms. In short: I suspect from these Wikipedia articles, from the tone of Yang's claims and from the writing style, that we're in WP:FRINGE territory as well. Yakushima (talk) 10:44, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Vassilev[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a living person. Has been deleted three times, once through WP:PROD and twice through speedy deletion. The same editor keeps recreating it. Putting to AFD to establish a clear consensus so that the article can either be kept/improved if sources can be found, or if not then deleted and (if necessary) salted. RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sorry, but this enormously long essay reads like this businessman paid someone to write an essay on him so that his legacy is even greater. Even put aside the fact there are absolutely no sources. I may change my mind if sources are provided, article is wikified and massively shortened... but even then I doubt it...WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in Bulgarian (Тодор Христов Василев) my searches are not pulling up any relevant hits. There's a guy called Todor Vassilev whose custody battle with his Polish wife got press last year, but it's not the same guy. Fences&Windows 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very flowery writing, but also very short on sources or references. Would not appear to be meet WP:V or WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 28 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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts of Music[edit]

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

Notability has not been demonstrated. Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. A Google news search on the title brings up no hits. References provided are 2 primary ones and a local magazine. RadioFan (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local access cable programs are by default NN, and nothing here appears to overcome that. Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Field Office[edit]

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

non notable field office of government agency WuhWuzDat 17:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned article with no sources. Minima c (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficient amount of content to justify own article. Brian Powell (talk) 14:57, 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Dice Dealer[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerilyn Sawyer[edit]

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

Seems to have been created by the person which is a WP:COI if that is the case, the article has no cited sources and I'm really not seeing any notability per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete: References are a mess, but if "Jerilyn was nominated for the 47th Annual Grammy Awards" is true, then she may satisfy WP:MUSICBIO #8 - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". What we need is a source that confirms it and describes the nature of the award she was nominated for. (Nothing else in the article seems sufficiently notable, and none of the sources given seems to convey sufficient notability - "sang the national anthem", mentions in passing, etc) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to 'Delete' after failing to find any evidence of Grammy nomination - the list found by Dylanfromthenorth, below, seems fairly conclusive (but I'll change back if anyone can actually find it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - I can't independently verify the claims of notability (Grammy award etc.). Claritas § 17:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've been searching and I couldn't verify it either - couldn't find anything on the Grammy site (but it is a very poor site). I've asked the original author if they have a reference, or at least some details of the category. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was writing a paper on a currently living singer for my college course at Berklee College of Music, and was lucky to come across this page. Jerilyn Sawyer's music may not be mainstream, but it is something that we have reviewed and studied in the past few years. I found this information,along with other sources, to be very helpful in creating my term paper. Please do not delete this page, because you will turn away many students who are looking for her information, whom will simply look elsewhere. I find this page very informative and very relevant. I can personally verify that she was nominated for a Grammy award, and will personally search for a link to verify that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejegirl12 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to an admin as a possible sockpuppet of page creator. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin will note the similarity of Jejegirl12 (talk · contribs) and Jerilyn18 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We both had used this article for a class term paper a few months back. That has drawn me to comment.

Could you please explain why I am being sited for sockpuppeting? I am not new to the use of wikipedia, but am a new log in member. I simply stated my opinion in the deletion matter, and am questioning why my opinion id being defaulted into the term "sockpuppeting." My opinion should be taken seriosuly like everyone elses, not categorized in a way to brush it off :( The other user that you claim is also me is a student at the same University as me. She had posted what she was editing for articles on facebook, and when I viewed them saw deletion pages, in which i decided to comment. We are not the same person by any means. Cant people have similar opinions????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejegirl12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all your edits to Wikipedia so far have been to pages related to Jerilyn Sawyer or to pages related to Nationwide Diesel Technologies, a company owned by Jerilyn Sawyer's father. When an editor appears to be editing in only a particularly narrow area of topics, especially when they have admitted that they are a classmate of the person they are writing about, the editor may appear to be a single-purpose account. The best way to get past this is to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with your friends and family or their friends and family. (By the way, you said you "both" used this article for a term paper. Who is the other person?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but your personal verification doesn't count. Independent sources are required. Working with notable people doesn't confer notability of itself. Performing in a parade is not notable. Grammy nominated? I can find nothing to back this up. A search for '"Jerilyn Sawyer" grammy 47th' gives 9 hits. Two are here, and the rest either don't seem to mention her, or to be bloggish stuff, or to mirror Wikipedia articles. That is about the only real claim to notability I can see in the article, and proper reliable independent evedence is needed before we can accept that claim. I've looked at grammy.com, and can't see any listing of previous nominations there. Doesn't mean it isn't there, though, or it may well be found somewhere else. Up to you to produce it.... Good luck with the career, anyway. If this goes, get some references sorted out and applied to the appropriate statements, and try again. (If not sure how to do, ask for help. Most of us regulars will be willing to help or point in the right direction.) Peridon (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this list of nominees Jerilyn Sawyer wasn't one of them. I can't see any other signs of notability as per WP:MUSICBIO, so unless some are produced this article should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Jerilyn was submitted for the Grammy award rather than nominated. "Record companies and individuals may submit recordings to be nominated." (quoted from Grammy Award. I would think that this might be a mistake in terminology. There is a link to the grammy.com list on the link above, but it won't work for me. Anyone else have a go? May need to contact the webmaster. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get a 404 error from the link too - it looks like it was a txt file that isn't there any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of evidence that the subject was actually nominated for a Grammy, the subject appears not to qualify under any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. (A musician doesn't have to have a Grammy nomination to be notable, but none of the other things Sawyer is listed as doing seem to qualify her as notable.) However, if it turns out that she personally was nominated for a Grammy (as opposed to, say, "she was one of 20 singers providing backup vocals on one track of an album that was nominated for a Grammy"), I would be likely to change my recommendation to "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. No grammy, no article. Vartanza (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Diesel Technologies[edit]

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

Non notable training company/organisation, also seems to be like advertising the company/organisation on Wikipedia rather then encyclopaedic notability. (This was Prod'ed but removed by the editor) Bidgee (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially speedy-deleted, but after several edit-conflicts restored it so the AfD can run its course. No indication that the company has any notability other than as a background for politicians. Acroterion _(talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per TransporterMan. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears that sections of the article are WP:COPYPASTE from, at least, 3 of the sources listed. Can remove the cut/paste sections, but not sure how much of the article would be left. It may qualify for WP:CSD G12, as it needs a complete rewrite. So far, the article copies verbatim some of this, this and this. Akerans (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 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 merge to List of The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffy Gerhardt[edit]

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Although lots of passing mentions in google/gnews, I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing to indicate that the character meets notability guidelines. Since there appears to be no appropriate list of characters to merge or redirect to, delete.--Beloved Freak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Unit characters.--Beloved Freak 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per same reasons as listed in deletion request for another character of the smae tv show: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Ryan. Sf46 (talk)

Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Unit characters - no notability. Claritas § 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:41, 28 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 The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Ryan[edit]

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ can find no real world significant coverage in reliable sources or anything else that demonstrates notability. Delete as there appears to be no list of characters to merge or redirect to.--Beloved Freak 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Unit characters. --Beloved Freak 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--just because a "list of [minor] chracters" article doesn't yet exist doesn't mean this isn't an appropriate target to merge non-notable fictional elements into. By the "doesn't exist yet" logic, each minor character could be nominated in turn and deleted--that's not an outcome that makes sense or serves our readers. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that merge would be the better option and if someone creates the article, that's what I would advocate. Don't see how to merge into nothing though.--Beloved Freak 08:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, but think it should be a Keep until it can be merged. Sf46 (talk)

Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:42, 28 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 The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Blane[edit]

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. There is no real need to be here... Hobit (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobit. So little content, we can probably keep all of it. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question With which article should it be merged? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good question. I'd say a characters of "The Unit" page should be created. The one list on the main page isn't enough IMO. But for now, to the main article...Hobit (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have just created a very basic List of The Unit characters, so merge to that.--Beloved Freak 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobit, GRuban, etc. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:40, 28 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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina naumann[edit]

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

Not finding any significant coverage beyond one (moderate) source in German. Looks below the level we'd generally expect of a model. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely not notable. Jared Preston (talk) 07:58, 28 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 Takashi Hashiguchi. T. Canens (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saijō no Meii[edit]

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

No coverage by reliable third-party source. Article is primary a plot summary with very little real-world context. Attempts to redirect the article to the author's article have failed as an IP author disputes the redirect without giving a reason. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. IP editor has previous declared an assumption of bad faith directly at me over a series of recent prods that I wasn't involve with other than review them for legitimacy.[5] and demands that the article be sent to AfD before letting the redirect stand.[6] —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Takashi Hashiguchi and permanent protect. I see no reason why this should not be redirected then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE shows some interesting hits:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=9027

--Gwern (contribs) 20:01 22 June 2010 (GMT)

Keep Its a bestselling manga, plus Gwern's search gets results. Dream Focus 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "bestseller" doesn't make something notable. Frequently, bestsellers are not covered by reliable third-party source, which is why it has been repeatedly rejected as a notability critiera at WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 04:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected from the guideline page where no more than a handful of people ever show up to argue. It has been accepted as a reason in many other AFD that ended in keep. Dream Focus 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only by people who don't know the difference between notability, which is based on coverage by third-party sources, and popularity, which has consistently been rejected as an inclusion criteria. —Farix (t | c) 13:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability guideline for books - entries in bestseller lists are entirely irrelevant. Article has serious just-a-plot issues. We can redirect to Takashi Hashiguchi later if it is seen as fitting. Claritas § 13:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough relevant coverage found to pass either the WP:GNG or the WP:BK. No licensor found in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. All i found is an Indonesian publisher. --KrebMarkt 18:20, 26 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, per this one link; on page three of Google News. — Timneu22 · talk 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magento[edit]

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

I came across this article because the Sboeconnect (new page) editor said, why can Magento have an article and we can't? So I looked at this article... while it would appear to include inline citations, I do not see any sources that are non-trivial and third-party; things come from blogs or this company's website or from directory listings. Because of the lack of reliable sources that do not indicate importance, and the advertising tone of the article, I'm nominating this for AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 15:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the google news link above seems to indicate there is significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get Magento's home page, Twitter links, software downloads, but I don't see any coverage in the ways of articles about the company, etc. As a software company, clearly there will be some links to get the software, but where are reviews of the software or indications that it is particularly important? — Timneu22 · talk 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're clicking on the wrong link - click on 'news' above your nom. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see links of a couple mergers related to the company (Paypal), but nothing really about the company. Any smallish company will have news from time to time, but what about the company itself? If this nom is completely off-base, then I will retract it, but I really don't see coverage covering the company and/or explaining its notability. — Timneu22 · talk 16:40, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Prolog (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent memories[edit]

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

Yet another MySpace band. Canniba loki 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Canniba loki 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the user Gilwellian - I agree 100% so delete the article, please. Even I believe the specific criteria is ambiguous. Wikipedia should be open to all sort of information, initiatives, etc., not close to the media and commercial purposes for the top class people, bands, etc. Regretfully Wikipedia is under certain shall we say too much individual, particular and peculiar views from administrators so information given is untrustworthly unprecise so people are often desoriented. Of course, once we might print two albums at least most probably will be able to appear as honored wikipedians (if we agree and the dozens of administrators viewpoints permit)... not "yet another myspace band" as did mention almost despectively, if so, please ask first before somebody fits info in the future about. Every song, name and trademark: Silent Memories is duly registered and protected by EU laws, perhaps we are a 3-years old but not a Mickey Mouse band, mright? We're in our 30s/40s and everyone an experienced and educated musician. Thanks for reading. Gilwellian (talk)gilwellian —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"Wikipedia should be open to all sort of information, initiatives, etc., not close to the media and commercial purposes for the top class people, bands, etc." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.--Canniba loki 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Wikipedia is promoting all active bands anyway, lots of pictures, albums, extras... the line is too narrow my friend. Posting some bands here is not promotion but information, nothing else, promotion is already done on MySpace and similar sites. But again, every administrator viewpoint is a world. I had the same problem in the Spanish Wikipedia, even an admin deleted pictures of bands from Wikimedia with more than two albums in the market, well known ones outside the country but unknown in Spain. 19:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilwellian (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia is promoting in someway all active bands anyhow, lots of pictures, albums, extras... the line is too narrow my friend. Posting some bands here is not promotion but information in my opinion, nothing else, promotion is already done on MySpace and similar sites." A bit contradictory... Anyway, see Wikipedia:Copyrights.--Canniba loki 19:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, contradictory like some admin opinion (not yours, do not misunderstand me). Gilwellian (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian[reply]

Please don't take it personally also applies to administrators, be polite. © All rights reserved ® All songs duly registered and protected trade mark Silent Memories under EU laws. Wikipedia is not longer available to print information about the band until further notice, sorry. p/s I'm kindly asking to delete my profile too. Thanks. Gilwellian (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian[reply]

To delete your user page, see Template:Db-u1.--Canniba loki 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized

See above. Please, deletion upon request of author. No trouble on my side, I'm a very simple man and to say the truth discussion in pointless. Gilwellian (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian[reply]

Are you searching Template:Db-g7?--Canniba loki 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? You're interested in deletion, not me, go forward and proceed then. I simply agreed, nothing else. Have a nice day dude! 21:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.117.15 (talk)

Delete: Fails to satisfy WP:BAND. But good luck to the band, and hope you achieve sufficient notability for an article in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Pagnotta[edit]

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

An assistant professor who appears not to meet our standards for notability of academics. Google Scholar only lists a handful of citations to his work and there is no claim made in the article or in his university bio of passing the guideline on any other count. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to really say about this--I haven't found any evidence he meets WP:PROF.Prezbo (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This GScholar search returns only four hits, most of which are working papers. Only an assistant professor. Clearly falls short of [[WP:PROF]. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have the citation record to pass WP:PROF #1 and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a vanity entry and the individual does not meet WP:PROF.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPA-created and basically WP:PROMOTION, as many early-in-career academic pages are. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:09, 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 both per author's request (G7) by Fastily. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Directed Therapy[edit]

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

This is a tangled web of edits. First the Future Directed Therapy (FDT) page was created. It went through a couple of names. At it's height it was only sourced to a directly related web site and a couple of offline sources.

Then a Future oriented therapy (FOT) page was created by a different user, and the FDT page(s) were redirected/merged. The FOT page is a good bit better sourced, and I'm not submitting it to AFD at this time.

Next, a third account shows up, and starts blanking the FDT redirects, saying that the two are different, and that associating them violates copyright and trademark. The blankings were reverted, and then unsourced stubs were written to again replace the redirects, and the stubs again assert trademark and copyright.

Given this whole mess, we have unsourced or minimally sourced pages that really show no notability. We also have copyright claims being thrown about, though I do not directly see G12 worthy copying. In general, the FDT pages at this point appear to me to be far more trouble than than benefit to the project. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a confusing mess but I believe two of these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Future Directed Therapy (FDT) has reliable information and is currently being updated. A book about the therapy is in the process of being published, which will add more legitimacy to the wikipage. Future oriented therapy is something different and should not be confused with FDT.

The "Future Directed Therapy" page (no FDT) and the "FutureDirectedTherapy" page (no spaces) should be deleated to avoid any confusion but "Future Directed Therapy (FDT) should remain online. LiveForward (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the standard naming structure on the project would be to not use the extra abbreviation in the name. So by Wikipedia article naming conventions, Future Directed Therapy would be the proper name rather than Future Directed Therapy (FDT). For now, let's leave things as they are. But if these survive this deletion discussion, then the main article, along with it's history, really should be moved back to the abbreviation-less page name.

That said, I still see no indication that the page meets the project's notability requirements. The book has possibilities, but it would need to be independent of the therapy's creators to be considered as a possible source for meeting WP:NOTE requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only evidence for notability is a paper submitted to a journal but not published, and a book in press at Balboa Publishing, a self-publisher [7]. such a book is not an indication of notability, or even verifiability, for in such a book one can say anything, and a scientific paper that has not even been accepted is no indication of notability either, unless it is accepted, published, and significantly commented on or cited. Including this in WP would be a significant disservice until such a therapy is either medically accepted or at last widely known popularly, in both cases as shown by third party references. I consider this as a possible G11 speedy, as promotional. Given what was said above, I also wonder about copyright? Was any of the material copied from material previously published outside Wikipedia? DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we placed an article that does not meet the wikipedia criteria please feel free to remove the pageLiveForward (talk) 04:41, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Fabi[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, 3 users have Prodded, I think might meet WP:N. As I've already removed a PROD once, I figured I'd sent it off to AfD for a larger discussion. I'm neutral. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as one of the prodders. Some changes have been made since then, but unless any inline citations can be provided to back up claims, then obvious delete. I'd change my mind with some WP:RS. — Timneu22 · talk 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just point out that a lack of in-line citations isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the lack of inline citations that could prove notability. I don't see any. — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just being clear that in-line or not, in the article or not, is not a reason to delete. See WP:DEL. If the sources don't exist that's a different story. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also because the person that the article is about created. No inline citations. Mr. R00t ^Talk 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails, in order, WP:COMPOSER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The Daytime Emmy nomination comes closest, but no cigar. (Verifiable at [8] [9] [10]; the Emmy Awards' official website doesn't seem to list past nominees or even winners that I could find.) —Korath (Talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Up For Grabs Now[edit]

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

There is no indication towards the notability of this podcast. It is claimed that it regularly features in the top 10 in the iTunes sports podcast chart, but so have many other podcasts. This podcast has not received any considerable coverage in any third-party sources either, and this is a requirement for a topic to be considered notable. – Pee Jay 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this podcast. Joe Chill (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is not idependently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hell no, it's immensly funny and is for the benefit of Gooners and not sad wiki-randomers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.254.26 (talk) 18:18, 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 Arthur characters. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ratburn[edit]

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

The other Arthur characters, other than Arthur and Buster, have been deleted/merged/changed to a redirect. I see no way how this character is more important than Fracine or Muffy Crosswire. There also appears to be a lack of sources, and is written in a mostly in-universe perspective. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this is a request for a merge and redirect, not a matter for AfD. Just do the merge. As far as I can see no one has tried it... Hobit (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said I wanted this to be merged. This article has no cited information, and has no real-word coverage. Just deleting this entire article (and maybe making it a redirect) seems the best course of action. Of course, that's just my opinion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Many faults but not AfD.--Technopat (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I said lack of sources I meant NO sources. Whatsoever. Unless we find sources, can we even MERGE the information? Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, but again, that's what unref tags are for. Not AfD. --Technopat (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there are no sources. I've seen the show and read the entire article. It's completely in-universe, and I don't think they're are ANY real-life sources. Thus, it fails notability. Thus, I'm nominating it for deletion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'd redirect the article right now if someone would give me a target. Is there a list of characters, or should we go to the show itself? The redirect would retain the history, so material (such as it is) could be merged over later on if sources are found. Ignoring the show's website (which lists this character), I've watched the show with my kids and can confirm that the character exists - that's good enough for me as far as listing the name on a list of characters, or some similar option. Anything more in-depth would require proper reliable sources, which are lacking (though the books might hold some value, there). On point of procedure, this didn't need to go to AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Arthur characters. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge kind of a questionable AFD since it seems to hint that merging would be suitable. But may as well discuss it here. Support merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:57, 29 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. Yes, alright, enough I think. For the official record, I don't have a beard. I note with surprise that List of monobrow figure skaters is still a redlink, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of writers with beards[edit]

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

I just don't see how this article is relevant to any audience. Futher, it's probably nonsense/vandalism (Saddam Hussein is a writer?). Maybe CSD but I don't see which reason. :( — Timneu22 · talk 14:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein has written four novels and myriad poems. The bearded community deserves to know which writers they can call their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermorybay (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) cf. Beard Liberation Front[reply]
Delete per nomination. Marx had a beard; Mark Twain had whiskers. This is an essentially random collection, not at all like List of poets with warts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

It's a suggestive and informative list. Rather than being random, it is highly specific. If it is not to your personal taste or if you disagree with the criteria, why not improve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermorybay (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random intersection of two things. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That accusation could be levelled against countless extant Wikipedia pages e.g. List of LGBT writers or List of Indigenous Australian rules footballers. The fact that so many editors presume that the page is a joke only highlights the prejudicial ridicule attached to men who choose to wear beards. --137.222.14.132 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for its inclusion on the basis of the existence of other articles, I'm merely questioning the accusation of 'randomness'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.14.132 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, this is just random list of people with beards which does not seem very notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a non-notable (yes, even random) intersection. We don't even have List of people with beards, so why writers? What does having a beard have to do with writing? "The fact that so many editors presume that the page is a joke only highlights the prejudicial ridicule attached to men who choose to wear beards. " - no one has really said it's a joke apart from the nominator, so that statement makes me more inclined to presume it was a joke in the first place.--Beloved Freak 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a consistent strain of scoffing levity attached to this debate, to deny that would be absurd. All of the collected writers are extremely notable. When the article is gradually improved to contain chronologies and more intricate subdivisions it will be more useful for those interested in fashion, literary biography and discussions of ferality, masculinity, fundamentalism, gender and class which the habit of beard-wearing (or shaving, perhaps) has brought to light over the centuries. Consider Leo Tolstoy, who grew his beard longer as his political beliefs became more extreme and whose works return frequently to the trope of the beard, what it means, and the fear of having it torn off.--Tobermorybay (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has edited only the nominated page and this discussion. How could this list be taken seriously? Please stop wasting our time. — Timneu22 · talk 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to WP:ATTP--82.46.90.154 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA. This really is a waste. — Timneu22 · talk 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mine isn't a SPA, it's simply a new one.--82.46.90.154 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Belovedfreak notes, facial hair and writing ability have nothing to do with each other. I'll be the first to come out and say that I believe that it was intended as a joke, either as a satire of oddly titled Wikipedia articles or a publicity stunt for "beard liberation". I suppose it's possible that the author sincerely believes that there is "prejudicial ridicule attached to men who choose to wear beards". Kind of fun on a miserably hot day, but it's run its course. Mandsford 19:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close this immediately and not wait seven days. — Timneu22 · talk 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a list of bearded writers is supposed to be funny, nor do I understand the nominator's undemocratic urge to quash the freedom of discussion which the AfD panel rightly upholds. I believe the list to be of notable discursive potential and have seven days to defend my belief, please extend me that courtesy as I have received none so far.--82.46.90.154 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:LISTCRUFT - how does having a beard make a writer notable? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a beard doesn't make a writer notable, but a beard can be a contribution to or symptom of that notability. From the angle of literary biography, facial hair is weighted with meaning; the understanding of adolescence, discrimination, wisdom, concealment, manhood and the image (in Emile Zola's words) of the 'Bête humaine' are all directions in which the discussion could expand. I strongly feel that the article is maintainable, expandable and intelligent; it is, in other words, not a frivolous undertaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.90.154 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speaking as a writer with a beard myself, I can confirm that the two characteristics are unconnected - I do occasionally shave, but it doesn't affect my writing at all ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page This article was invaluable in confirming my suspicion that generic style was equitable with the tonsorial holdings of certain authors.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.140.147 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the preceding !vote was left by an IP address which has made no other edits at the time of this writing. See WP:SPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAzee Luu[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 28 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) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Workspace Management[edit]

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

I feel this article must duplicate another, and possibly is just a definition for a category that's already on Wikipedia. In any case, there is no source here, and nothing worth expanding. I think the user created the page in good faith, but it seems this information is redundant redundant with other information on this encyclopedia. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator whose account bears the name of the product manager for a product using this neologism. Empty Buffer (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User Workspace Management refers to the delivery of IT services to an end user that are relevant to or needed by that end user at a certain time, date, location and on a certain computing device. Examples of these IT services are software applications, printers, data, network shares or personal settings. Huh? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants[edit]

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

There are two problems with the article. One problem, which in itself doesn't merit deletion, is its poor quality. Different users happily put in the numbers they want for each city; sometimes with best intentions, sometimes with patriotic intentions. There is no single source on which the list is based, explaining why it's in such a bad shape. In short, for some cities the population of a greater area is included, for other cities just the population of the city proper. The only purpose of the list, I assume, is to provide a ranked list of European cities. The list is useless for that purpose, as the different figures used are not comparable. This far, I've merely mentioned a (severe) problem that could be fixed. However, I don't see any purpose of this list. We already have so many lists of cities in the European Union that we could make a list of those lists... There's Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, Largest urban areas of the European Union, List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, Largest population centres in the European Union. As this article is in a bad state, not possible to fix (there's no source to use) and quite frankly rather redundant, I suggest it be deleted. I don't see it adding any useful information to that found in the other four articles listed above. Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Each city listed has its own article, many of those contain population data with references. Seems this might be usefull to someone (students looking for jobs in larger cities, travelers, etc). Seems to conform to WP:LIST. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy either argument, but the only one relevant to deleting or not is the second one. The information might be useful but did you take the time to check out all the existing lists? The first one (out of the five lists of cities in the EU) is exactly the same as this one, except that it stops at 300.000 and this one stops at 100.000. If the information is useful, it would make more sense to include the cities with less than 300.000 and more than 100.000 in that list, instead of having this as a fifth list of cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was prepared to say keep because of the topic, but it's ridiculous that the "sources" are other Wikipedia articles. Lazy ass work like that is okay for things that people would not be expected to take seriously, but not for something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. So we're supposed to assume that the numbers are accurate? I don't think so. Take your collection of little flags somewhere else. Mandsford 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sourced articles have their populations sourced. Someone just needs to do their homwork and add the correct sources to the list. Clean up is not a reason for deletion. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but repetitive and redudant articles certainly are. I'm pointing out again, for the third time, that there are five(!) separate lists for ranking cities in the EU by population. Have you even read my motives for starting the AfD and looked at the other lists?Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List articles, by nature, are redundant. So are most catagories for that matter. (WP:CLN) However WP has plenty of space and as long as the list has a unique criteria for inclusion (which it does) I see no reason to delete. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what would that unique critieria be? Going all the way to down to 100.000 instead of the one stopping at 300.000? By the same logic, we could create 20 more lists with cities in the EU. One could stop at 200.000, one at 150.000, one at 80.000 and so on. In your opinion, how many different lists ranking the population of cities in the EU do we need? I struggle to understand why five is the magic number...Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an attempt to rescue the article, Gtstricky has started adding references to it. While the effort certainly is commendable, it highlights two problems:

1.Despite my stating in every post here that the main problem is the redundancy (we have five lists about this), Gtstricky still seems to think that the problem is the numbers. It's not.

2. In adding "sources", Gtstricky has made my point better than I could have done myself. He has added references for the first three cities. For London, the reference is "Woodlands Junior School"... Bad as it is, it still pales in comparison to the source for Madrid, being an Iranian tourist agency. Sure, we can find some numbers for any city if we search the web and happily ignore WP:RS but what's the value of such a list? If a junior school and an Iranian tourist agency is what we resort to for London and Madrid, what on earth will we add as sources for small cities in Bulgaria or Latvia? The list is a mishmash of WP:OR, as Gtstricky has exemplified very well.

So once again: the numbers in the list are not reliable, but even if they were, the list would be completely redudant as there already are four lists ranking cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had spent all of 5 minutes looking fro references. I just went and changed them to official census data. As for the multiple list arguements, see above. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I said that your effort is commendable. Still, it did highlight the problem of wildly improper sources being used and a general lack of reliability. At the moment, around 10 out of almost 500 cities are sourced, the rest are just random numbers.Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that a similarly-named article (List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people) was moved to List of United States cities by population. I agree that there are problems with having "the statistics that anyone can edit" and that we seem to have problems with redundant lists. If this is neglected and has become inaccurate, then I would change my vote to delete.

Comment The problem with the other (redundant) lists is that they are much less comprehensive. --Boson (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100,000 is a typical division point. In Germany, for instance it is the dividing line between a city (Großsstadt) and a town (Stadt). So the list for more than 100,000 would suggest itself as the one to keep, if any are to be deleted. If the other lists are better sourced, the references could be copied from there. See, for instance, List of cities in Germany with more than 100,000 inhabitants --Boson (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSince verification seems to be a problem, I have downloaded the latest available figures (last update May 2010) from the Eurostat database and put them on the article's talk page. There may be some discrepancies, so the table may need adjusting, and it would probably be sensible to add the reference year, since some countries only supply older data. If these data are added to the table, that should make it not only the most comprehensive but also the best and most consistently sourced table; so we could then consider whether to delete the other redundant articles or, if they contain additional information, merge them with this article. --Boson (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Boson. Plenty of maps have towns identified by population, and the 100k threshold is one of them. Perfectly fine list, with a clear inclusion criteria. If the article is of poor quality, as the nom states, then fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate doubts about the accuracy of numbers do not fall in the category of "so fix it". This isn't a question of grammar or punctuation. We're still a long way from overcoming the stereotype of "You can't believe anything you see on Wikipedia". A big thank you to User:Jeppiz for nominating a page that was pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Mandsford 18:31, 27 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 that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. This list is an amalgam of existing list that are published, but it is still an original topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case we better rewrite WP:LISTS and WP:CLN Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list meets WP:list albeit much of the deletion rationale above about the sourcing, redundancy and inherently problematic issues with dynamic data such as population information are legitimate points for discussion. None of that rationale is strong enough to warrant deletion, but argues for article improvement. The deletion rationale claiming this list is OR because the list title has never been published anywhere is entirely without merit, displays a true lack of understanding of our policies on OR and is a tired refrain seen in too many List related AfDs that will become no more true no matter how many times it is repeated. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, at least put a big disclaimer on the top that says "We have no idea where the authors got this stuff, they could have made the numbers up for all we know, one would have to be a f***ing idiot to rely upon this for any purpose, Wikipedia was not intended to be taken seriously." Mandsford 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I don't necessarily disagree with you, although such a strong caveat might be detrimental to our credibility. That said, city populations are available in reliable publications--online and in print. We just need to find them and cite them in the article. Additionally, a bit more data about the timeframe as to when the population figure applies will make this a much more useful list. Our job as editors is to find ways to improve these types of articles and encourage and help others learn how to do the same.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, wouldn't it be better if this was in userspace until someone can verify it? The big mistake— and it's a huge one—- was for someone to compile this table without putting in any way to verify it. When it comes to statistics, not bothering to mention where the information came from is incredibly stupid, and it shouldn't be accepted. Put another way, if someone writes that Barcelona is the capital of Spain, I know fairly quickly that it's a mistake and that it can be corrected. But if someone tosses out the number that the population of Barcelona is 1,605,602 people, I don't know, and all sorts of questions come up-- When? Based on what? Who says? But most of all, where did you get that from? I can't see keeping an article on display to avoid hurting someone's feelings. And I certainly can't see keeping it as a backlash to the usual comments by Gavin Collins. He has his own view of what Wikipedia should be, but to the extent that they have any effect on the outcome of a debate, I think they result more often in an article being kept. This one needs to be kept in userspace until it's ready to be an encyclopedia artcle. Mandsford 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a disclaimer. As I wrote above, I have put Eurostat data on the talk page. Just replace the data with the sourced data that I have already placed on the article's talk page. I think Eurostat must count as a reliable source for population data. I am not an expert with tables, and I didn't want to go to the trouble of putting the data on the article page while the deletion debate is still going on. Also, it wouldn't hurt for someone else to check the data. But anyone can take the data from the talk page at any time. --Boson (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boson, Thanks for your initative on this one. Hopefully we can get the data and sourcing integrated in due course.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:46, 29 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) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Williams-Forbes[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found no reliable sources to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show notability. Article makes some wild unsourced claims, such as the subject "being renowned for inventing the concept of submissions". Fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources support notability. Article appears to be autobiographical with false and inflated claims. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 16:59, 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masanao Takazawa[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article his claim to notability is founding a martial art that his instructor named and created the katas for. The article says the art is a "minor style of ... strain and is not widely known even in its country of birth." Doesn't seem like much of a claim to notability and seems to fail WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria supporting deletion at Wikipedia:MANOTE#Martial artists. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Astudent0 summed things up nicely. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Theodorová[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, so fails the GNG. Fails what little is left of PORNBIO too. Valrith (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability, fails WP:BIO. Claritas § 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails GNG & PORNBIO. DiiCinta (talk) 12:30, 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Du Kirpalani[edit]

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

This article is a completely unsourced BLP (it does not qualify for blpprod due to age). It does a great job of name dropping (various notable people he allegedly worked with, etc) but none of it is sourced. B (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are IMDB references not considered valid sources ? Youtube links to standup comedy shows performed have been removed. IMDB links to the shows that include Du Kirpalani as a writer have been removed. If IMDB does not qualify as a valid film source, could you please tell me what does ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.246.125 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB contains user-authored data and is not considered to be a reliable source. --B (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it is possible that under all the press agentry and nauseatingly shameless promotional editing by the subject, his agent, his friends, his family, his producer(s), etc., there is actually a salvageable article here. Our US/UK cultural bias is well-known, and may be relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, he lives in America now. If he were notable, you would think we could find something on him. As of right now, there isn't even anything that confirms his existence, let alone his notability. --B (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and Mike, when you say "Our US/UK cultural bias is well-known," who is "we"? I write more articles on Asian stuff than American, and I take umbrage at the blanket tarring. Wikipedia as a community works very hard to prevent systemic bias. That does not mean we should wring our hands and let vanity autobios get a pass.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I'm going by the state of the typical article on a small Tennessee town, for example, compared to that for a much bigger town in Maharashtra or Bali. That's not to deny that some of our editors do their best. In the case of this article, I meant that the claims of notability due to work in the Indian television industry are harder for the typical Wikipedia editor to confirm or deny, compared to the situation if he'd worked for the BBC or any U.S. network. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply+1 And how extensive are those Tennessee town articles on the Hindi or Gujarati or Malayalam Wikipedias? Bias is relative, the argument has no business in this AfD.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to utter lack of even a token effort toward neutrality; this could probably have been G11'd. I count 21 sentences in the current revision of the article; no more than two of them would appear unchanged in an NPOV version. Even if this person is even minimally notable, the onus is on those wishing to retain the article to provide reliable sources to show that he's an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. I could find no such sources amongst your obvious SEO; Wikipedia is not another outlet for the same. —Korath (Talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO - little coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 17:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded this sometime back as unsourced. Some IP got it reinstated through WP:REFUND. Instead of writing a neutral article using reliable sources, he (presumably the subject himself) has created an unsourced unabashedly promotional piece. ("I depend on wikipedia to get new work and I don't look professional if my articles are subject to deletion. Not only employers, but lawyers check up on me.")--Sodabottle (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a point of clarification, the article was never deleted (at least not under this name). IPs opened four separate requests on WP:REFUND and each time were informed that the article had never been deleted. --B (talk) 00:47, 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopWiki[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I couldn't find any references to it but that might be because "desktop wiki" is primarily a generic term. Schuhpuppe (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is a download page. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 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. Insufficient secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1714 revolt of Chameria[edit]

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

I have tried to check the entire web but unfortunately there can't be found something under this or a similar title. Even the Albanian title: Revolta e Çamërisë e vitit 1714, gives zero results in google [[11]] (apart from wikipedia nothing) and googlebooks [[12]]. To sum we have:

Complete lack of any kind of sources (primaries&secondaries&tertiaries).
Even if there was some kind of rebellion in this region that is sporadically mentioned in Albanian historiography (English has for sure nothing to say about it), I hardly doubt if this was considered a Cham rebellion. Sounds like the usual pov to promote national agendas in Balkan related articles.Alexikoua (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost 20 days passed and there was no improvement in the article, I've initially placed the -verify- tag some days before and finally now it's time for afd.Alexikoua (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is not always online to bring the page of the book. However the appropriate tome of the History of the Albanian People by the Academy of Sciences of Albania from which this article seems to have referenced can be read online here. This is the 2002 version of the History of the Albanian People, the first one was in 1959. It is still used as a textbook at a University level in Albania. The article creator has correctly sourced. The article is missing background and aftermath, but those things can be added easily, because there is plenty of info in the History of the Albanian People book. I will improve the article in the next week, however I suggest the article be retracted from AfD as inadeguately listed here. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dead link [13].Alexikoua (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Review please although you can't ctrl+F there. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 07:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way is this the only single source that can be found?([[14]] what's this by the way?). If we can find at least one non-authoritative book (not initially published by an authoritarian authority like stalinist Albania of 1959 [[15]]) that confirms this it would be ok.

I trust that the book has been correctly scanned in that website, because I don't think the creator of the article took it from there. Btw, user:Balkanian's word was just given reviewer status. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the entire bibliography according to googlebooks, googlescholar seems to completely ignore (for example this leads to irrelevant results) this authoritarian-only sourced 6-lines confirmed event. Of course if a decent source can be found, we can reconsider. Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Albanian people was written in 2002 by a group of people in the Academy of Sciences of Albania. In 2002 Albania was NOT a stalinist country as 12 years earlier pluripartitism had entered Albania. It was not a republication of the same book, but a revised version, so I have no idea why you would bring totalitarian issues. In addition, the studies of the Academy of Sciences of Albania were all based on primary and secondary sources, with both historians and Ottoman documents of the time preserved both in Istanbul and Tirana. Furthermore, not everything is on Google. Albanian inhabited territories have a huge history of wars and upheavals, so it isn't strange that due diligence is more burdensome for this kind of events. This is not a reason to bring things to AfD though. It just disrupts our editing process. You know fully well Balkanian's word's work and you should have AGF'd him more on this I sense. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the specific topic and avoid wp:or. The specific url: doesn't contain any bibliography. Moreover, are you sure that this a work of 2002? This is 'nowhere' to be seen [[16]]. To sum up: a 6 line text taken from a link we didn't know its credibility doesn't seem to be enough for the creation of a separate article. We need something to confirm this rebellion, but even Albanian speaking bibliography in googlebooks/googlescholar doesn't mention this.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(took off indent) I am focusing exclusively on the topic. You should be familiar with tertiary sources and their use. This book is a typical tertiary source (undergraduate level textbook). Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources have bibliography but this has not. Moreover, it doesn't say that it is a 2002 version. It's probably much older (80s as it says) which makes it highly unreliable as stated above (moreover, where is the title? I see no book title in this url and probably is a fraction of a book). If this is really the one and only 'source' that briefly mentions this event I hardly doubt if it is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua have you taken a history class? Because I have and my books didn't have bibliography, neither in Albania nor in the USA. The link says that it's a new edition, but Balkanian's word is saying that he took it from the History of the Albanian People, 2002 version, you are not AGF-ing him. It doesn't say 80s, it's saying that the first edition was in 1959, the second in 1972, the third in 1983 and the current one (from the link we don't know but BW is saying it should be 2002), is another year. It is a fraction of the book which has several tomes. The fraction is called "Turkish Presence in Albania". As a tertiary source it relies on secondary sources. But of course we can't work on them because you Greeks like to see this very long paragraph and prevent us Albanians from editing in Wikipedia by bringing to AfD every single article we create. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for wp:agf alone isn't argument, especially if the same user has misused several authors in order to promote an extreme nationalistic pov.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source of note to substantiate this even as an event.Megistias (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event is covered in the textbook History of the Albanian People by Academy of Sciences of Albania. Cheers. kedadial 00:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage whatsoever in reliable English (or non-English) language sources. History books of totalitarian regimes are not reliable sources. Many, many history books have been written about the Ottoman Balkans. The fact that none mention this event cast doubts on whether it actually happened. Athenean (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history of the Balkan countries is full of wars and upheavals agains the Ottoman Empire. Every single event in particular is not covered by the world historigraphy, and the reasons may be many, but we have tertiary Albanian sources for that. The source is published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania, the highest scholar authority of Albania. I see many articles in Wikipedia that are not sourced with English sources, many of them go to DYK. Good faith is presumed for these articles and their presence in wikipedia enriches the encyclopedia. The 19th century Albanian National Awakening movement and the League of Prizren did not come out of nothing. On the contrary, there were many resistance movements, spontaneous or organized, like the 1714 revolt and other organized revolts, which prepared the terrain for the 19th century's important fight of the Albanians against the Ottoman Empire. As a result these revolts are extremely important events to show the background of the 19th century Albanian National Awakening. Indeed this article is currently poor, but once that we have some more articles to show its background, we'll be able to bring the Albanian National Awakening to a higher article class.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 13:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues, you should please focus on this afd, which is virtually unsourced. Disrupting the proccess in repeating abstract comments leads to nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please not accuse me of disruption? I above explained to you the difference between a secondary and a tertiary source and noted how a tertiary source can successfully be used in Wikipedia. We are relying on a single reliable source, this is the only argument that you have. Take a look around in Wikipedia and delete all the articles that rely on no sources or only on one reliable source and you'll have gotten rid of one fourth of the articles of the 3.2M ones that WP contains. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to substantiate information as to create an article. This is a non-event. Megistias (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm basing this not on any knowledge of the history of Albania, but on Wikipedia's sourcing policy - WP:PSTS says "Our policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That sounds to me as if tertiary sources can be used, but only if primary and secondary sources are also available, so I think we would need at least one secondary source in order to keep this article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anyone has a YouTube registration (I don't), perhaps they could contact the person who uploaded this and ask if they have any sources? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The video was created at 28 May while the article at 24 May. The creator of this video probably used wiki as source since he copy-pasted parts the text [[17]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source is reliable and article is notable.--I Pakapshem (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:I_Pakapshem is indef topic banned according to this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No book or something can confirm the event. I know this game, is it Total War?CrazyMartini (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found this [18] which seems to be the source for some of the statements in the article about events in 1708 and 1714 involving the "Cameri". This one, unfortunately, is a snippet view, but there may be more comprehensive sources. Mandsford 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment That's the same source that is already used in the article. It is moreover from the 1980's, when Albania was a totalitarian dictatorship, so official sources such as this should be taken with a grain of salt. Athenean (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the event is not supported by other sources therefore it seems insignificant enough. A Macedonian (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Tadija^speaks 19:16, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Beardsley[edit]

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

Delete Not notable, the fact that he served under Romeo Dallaire, was decorated and participated in writing a book about Rwanda does not make the Major notable. Jemesouviens32 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per my comment on the article discussion page from three years ago. Any relevant information (and there isn't much) could easily be covered in Rwanda Genocide or Romeo Dallaire. Geoff NoNick (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No decent reliable sources mention him in any detail, and he fails other aspects of GNG and MILMOS - didn't command a large body of troops, for example, or be the recipient of the highest valor award of his country, or multiple second-level medals.Skinny87 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found quite a few passing mentions, but not really enough, I feel, to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClipboardMultiSharer[edit]

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

No indication at all as to why this is important. No sources, third-party coverage, or relevant search results. It doesn't read like WP:ADVERT, but this may be the intent of the page. — Timneu22 · talk 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've enhanced the article along the lines suggested above. Now it contains more information about the utility as well as having more pointers to relevant concepts/information. I believe at this point it does convey some useful information, but it's after all still about that particular utility, and how important the article (ie. is it important enough) is another matter of judgement. Sorry if I wasted anybody's time here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behcet (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sourcing attesting to notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 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 Keep In the context of WP:SS there are probably some legitimate concerns related to this article and the current hierarchy of articles related to LDS. On the other hand, an evaluation of this article on its individual merits clearly supports a KEEP on the the basis of WP:GNG and WP:V. My recommendation is that members of the LDS Project and other relevant projects develop some consensus on the best approach to covering all aspects of LDS (pro and con) in a logical way.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts[edit]

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

This article strikes me as being uneeded in regards to criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement here on wikipedia. Despite being a page using cited context, everything discussed on this page in regards to criticism of the Book of Mormon is already found in these articles; Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, we must consider that there are too many critical pages on this topic as it is. The content in this page also seems to have been merely cut+pasted from the pages I have listed and not wrote in an original style. Hence there is nothing on this page about the Book of Mormon, which cant already be found in greater detail on the following pages to which I have listed. Once you take out the Book of Mormon content which is already repeated, you are left with a tiny bit about the Doctrine & Convenants which is thin in detail and simply relies on the Book of Mormon criticism to be valid. The book of Abraham criticism is well documented and in a high quality detail in the Book of Abraham article, and also again, the "critical" content has been cut and pasted from the parent page. The article then goes into an almost irrelevant explaination of the KJV version of the bible being used by the church and the LDS views on the KJV version. So really to summarise, is this article really worthful? Considering its content has been simply cut and pasted from parent articles already covering the subject, and has no new critical content or purpose to contribute? Routerone (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is best understood in the context of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article. That article is a WP:Summary Style article and has a key section Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement#Criticism of sacred texts, which is a summary of the article under discussion: Criticism of Mormon sacred texts (and has a "main" link to it). There is a very natural hierarchy here:

Latter-day Saint Movement

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, etc

This hierarchy of articles is natural, and helpful to readers. Eliminating this article would cut-out a critical level of that hierarchy. and presumably its content would get pushed up into the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article - but that action would make that article very unwieldy. A key fact is that there are several major religious text in the LDS movement, in addition to the Book of Mormon (such as the Pearl of Great Price,Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants, etc). I do agree that Criticism of Mormon sacred texts is rather poorly written, and duplicates too much text. But the remedy for that is to clean it up, not delete it. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should point out that before this article existed, its content was in Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article - and a year or two ago there was a big push to clean up that article because it was large and ugly. As part of that clean-up effort, one of the decisions was to take all the content about the religious texts and put it into its own article. That was done, and thus Criticism of Mormon sacred texts was created. That did indeed make the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article cleaner and nicer. Deleting this article now would just push the content back into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and we would just be flip-flopping. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find the concept of keeping an article for the sake of preserving a hierarchy/pattern a very sufficient argument. We should be evaluating the article on the basis of its own content and not using other pages to support it, this is about quality not a mere quantity. However I would like to remind you that because the content is already a cut/paste from an already excessive and unnecessary amount of critical articles it is not going to make the slightest difference if it is missed. We can avoid "squahing" content together by simply providing links on the main Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article to each page critical of the texts, rather than have a bulk duplicate such as this which seems to be existing for the purposes of presentation over information, which to me represents just another cheap excuse for a dig at Mormonism. It firmly serves no useful purpose attributed to the core concepts of this encyclopedia. Routerone (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routerone: please do not misrepresent what I said. I did not say "keeping an article for the sake of preserving a hierarchy/pattern". Instead I said the hierarchy was "useful to readers". There are two problems with deleting the article and putting its content back into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement (where it used to be a year ago): (1) A couple of the sacred texts do not have dedicated articles on the criticisms (Book of Abr and D&C); (2) If this content were put into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement that article would be very imbalanced (e.g. the size of the textual crit section would dwarf the "Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr." section). In the spirit of compromise: what if you create a draft copy of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article (for example, you can just create a sub-page under this page Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mormon sacred texts/draft ) - and you could edit that copy of Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and show roughly how would look if this Deletion proposal was carried out. If your proposed version looks good for readers, I would be happy to change my !vote. --Noleander (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! Have you read the Book of Abraham article? It is more of a criticism page than NPOV. Searching for "Criticism of the Book of Abraham" leads to the BoA article (which I find ironic). You have admitted that there is a lot of duplication in this article- which is another reason this article should be deleted. EVERY single criticism in this article can be traced to another article!! Forget about hierarchy, and focus on specifics. Why should this page stand on its own? --CABEGOD 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Repetition adnauseam benefits no one and LDS topics do seem to particularly repetitive. If there is anything novel in the article, then keep it and change the title to fit the new topic, i.e. Criticism of the Doctrine and Covenants. A hierarchy for hierarchy's sake is meaningless unless the progression results in a cumulative addition of new information. Simply repeating what already exists elsewhere is aggrandizement. --^StormRider 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to have come about because the nominator doesn't like the article. That is not relevant. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single Mormon sacred text has it's own article with criticisms. This article is overkill and meets the qualifications to be deleted. --Suplemental (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Regent of the Seatopians and Noleander's arguments. --Europe22 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In the Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates, this article violates the following policies:

#1Case Study: In several cases assumptions are made with no sources associated with them.

#2Internal Links: The article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article.

#3Opinions: The Book of Moses section (for example) does not have citations - which means one can only assume it is the opinion of the editor.

#4Soapbox: Read the entire article and you tell me this isn't a soapbox. Where's the balance?

#5This article violates the duplicate rationale.

#6This article violates the overlap rationale.

--CABEGOD 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all the points you raised, even if true, can be solved by a simple edition, not deletion. You misrepresent some of the policies you cite: for example, WP:LINKFARM says "Exclusive collections of internal links, except for allowable lists and disambiguation pages" but this becomes "the article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article" when you refers to. It is not the same thing! It smells like a strong WP:IDONTLIKE... -- Europe22 (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the points I raised can be resolved by a simple edit, but not "all" as you have stated. Regardless, ALL of the points I made are within Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates, which means I can use them as arguments for deletion. Secondly, every argument in this article (i.e. Origin, Book of Abraham, KJV, etc) has its own article. This article doesn't need to be here. Lastly, your sense of smell must be off. Please don't accuse me of bias. It's not appropriate, nor does it do you any good. --CABEGOD 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you refer to WP policies, but this is not the proof of their validity here, mostly if you actually misused them. I'm sorry, but the fact that you listed rules of WP while distorting them indicates your clear will to see this page deleted, although you fail to provide good reasons. So I think this falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And your second point is contradicted by Noleander's argument. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How have I distorted the rules of WP? Until you can provide clear specifics on why you believe this article should stand on its own two feet, your opinion does not hold water. Have a pleasant evening, --CABEGOD 01:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:#1Case Study: In several cases assumptions are made with no sources associated with them => WP:NOTCASE : this page is not an instruction manual, nor a travel guide, an Internet guide, a textbook and annotated text, a scientific journal and research paper, or a case studie ("Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest."). In addition, you can't say the article is a cade study and in the meantime, asserting that "every argument in this article (i.e. Origin, Book of Abraham, KJV, etc) has its own article". It is contradictory or it means that these article also fall under "case study". => Irrelevant

: #2Internal Links: The article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article => WP:LINKFARM : Irrelevant, I already responded

: #3Opinions: The Book of Moses section (for example) does not have citations - which means one can only assume it is the opinion of the editor => WP:NOTOPINION : this article does not fall under advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion or advertising. If some sentences are unsourced, you can add {{ref}}, but it is not a ground for deletion, as the full article is not an OR => Irrelevant

: #4Soapbox: Read the entire article and you tell me this isn't a soapbox. Where's the balance? => WP:SOAPBOX : same page. In addition, the article contains views from LDS apologetics. Even if it is not enough, a POV issue can be solved by editing => Irrelevant

: #5This article violates the duplicate rationale => I found nothing on the page...

: #6This article violates the overlap rationale => WP:OC#OVERLAPPING : this argument is for "categories" => Irrelevant

: Do not reverse the "burden of proof". It is you who must prove why this article should be deleted, and your arguments are based on a misinterpretation of WP policies as I just demonstrated. For my part, I think this article should be kept as it passes WP:N and it is a WP:Summary Style. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed some key points. Let me explain:

1)“Articles examining the relationship between factor A and factor B when not found in any sources.” One example of this is in the 2nd paragraph of the Origin section. Where are the sources?? Without sources, it is practically the definition of a case study.

2) Links – How does having a link to Jacob Weisberg, and a link to StayLDS have anything to do with the specifics in the article?

3) I can use anything within the guidelines as a cause for deletion. Further, without sourcing – the article reeks of opinion. Read the Book of Moses section.

4) As far as the SOAPBOX issue is concerned: A quick read of the entire article will indicate a POV. Yes, you’re right in saying this can be fixed with an edit – but it can still be used as a cause for deletion.

5) I didn’t explain this one as well as I could have. I believe you should check out Content Forking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFORK#Redundant_content_forks

6) Overlap – “ There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.”

- --CABEGOD 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article serves as a useful summary for the topic for those who do not have the time to read twelve other pages to learn about the subject. Heywood J2 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the content in this article can be found elsewhere. It needs to go. --71.199.50.34 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the whole hierarchy needs to be reviewed. I don't mean to cast aspersions but have you guys looked at this so called hierarchy? It's a shambles and it serves no purpose at all. Noleander says this is the summary article for Criticism of the Book of Mormon, have you looked at that article? It's empty! If anything Criticism of the Book of Mormon should be deleted. as an article it's useless. This whole series needs to be rewritten to follow this supposed hierarchy and to deal with the repetitive nature of the criticisms. To be honest, the current article under discussion does a moderately OK job of covering the salient points of each text. If we're looking to get rid of extraneous articles then get rid of the Criticism of the Book of Mormon article. Oh, and Noleander? If you take a good look at the articles in question you'll see the hierarchy actually goes like this:

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

Origin of the Book of Mormon

ad infinitum...

Not really that useful when you come right down to it. The whole hierarchy needs to be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. If there is a hierarchy then it needs to be relevant and obvious... and it needs to exist, not just mask the promulgation of more "Criticism of..." articles. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Padillah: I believe you are mistaken. How did you build that hierarchy you show above? The Origin of the Book of Mormon article has no mention whatsoever of Criticism of the Book of Mormon or Origin of the Book of Mormon articles. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me for confusing the Origin of the Book of Mormon with Criticism of the Book of Mormon. The contents of those articles are kind of hard to tell apart. The correct hierarchy should be ...

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Book of Mormon (almost empty)

Origin of the Book of Mormon (== Criticism of the Book of Mormon. Face it, it does.)

Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

etc.

Hope that helps. In any case, a quick glance will tell the most unobservant that the hierarchy you proposed, while a perfectly acceptable hierarchy, is not, in point of fact, what exists today. The Latter-day Saint Movement does not branch down anywhere in the article, nor does it make mention of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article. There's also a question in my mind as to why a criticism article should lead to an informative article? Shouldn't the Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon lead to the Criticism, not the other way round? Meanwhile the Origin of the Book of Mormon article reads from the very beginning as a POV attack on the original claim of the Prophet. The entire list of articles you mentioned are disgraceful and need to be re-written in the worst way. It is really difficult seeing articles in this state and wonder why editors are wasting there time picking on AfD's like this when they need to be making meaningful changes to the entire series of articles to bring them in line with the collegial tone we are trying to set here in WP. Padillah (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, from your confusion, that you are new to this set of articles. For instance, you are wrong when you say "The Latter-day Saint Movement does not ... make mention of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article." Perhaps you are unaware that Criticism of Mormonism is a redirect to Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement? After you review the articles a bit more, perhaps you could contribute some constructive ideas for improvement. Also, you may want to review the WP:Summary Style guideline, which is employed in the Criticism of the Book of Mormon article. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources and is a notable topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also very similar to Criticism of the Bible. Many of the users here advocating deletion are obviously non-neutral as they ackowledge being affiliated with the LDS movement (which can be implied from their user pages' userboxes) Maashatra11 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliation equals an inability to be neutral? Do you have any references to support that position or is your own bias being demonstrated? I suggest you never repeat such a statement again. Does you affiliation with groups deny you the right to assume neutrality or should you always be excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2010

Weak Delete The information in the article seems to be expressed in other articles critical of Mormonism. The article could be salvaged if it was entirely redone and devoted to a specific criticism. Hierarchy, I believe, is meaningless. --Atheisty (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — Atheisty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Only five edits, and already a vote by "Atheisty"... And just after Maashatra11's comment ("Many of the users here advocating deletion are obviously non-neutral as they ackowledge being affiliated with the LDS movement"). Curious... --Europe22 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Good timing, Atheisty :) Europe22, Is there a policy describing which users are allowed to vote? Maashatra11 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't read the other hierarchy of articles so I'm unsure if a merge would be appropriate, but looking at this article alone it is well-sourced and passes WP:GNG. Removing duplicated criticisms shouldn't require deletion as details should simply be moved out of the summary articles and into the more detailed ones, down the hierarchy. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

◦At the bottom:

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

Just checking in because someone else asked me to. For what it's worth I see the following considerations.

1. The article on Joseph Smith already contains a plethora of criticism to make the article 'balance.' Therefore a second page showing criticism of him is unfair unless there is a page somewhere which reflects the Mormon perspective or respect for Joseph Smith. I know, this discussion is not about Joseph Smith, but the same principle applies universally. In essence if an article which is balanced already exists (i.e. an article on the Book of Mormon) it is assumed that it will be framed by both criticisms and respect for the context of those who believe the text. Thus a criticism is redundant especially if there already exists links to criticism or further reading including criticism of the subject.

2. Including criticisms of a religious text (no need to call it sacred as that seems to be redundant) are fair form but I do not see the function of criticism of any religion, unless of course there is balance by allowing for a positive presentation or beliefs section of a faith group. In fact, here in Canada that might stray dangerously close to our hate speech language. I would qualify this by assuming that the religious intent of any text is treated respectfully somewhere, otherwise Wikipedia entertains unfair bias.

Also, consider this model. In my discussions on Smith I am not at all averse to the existence of criticism concerning him, I would ideally see a bare-bones neutral profile which would then link to both a critical and a contextual page so that those looking for either might find what they are looking for. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what that would look like yet but if they'd let me at it I'd have a go. See having an article on Joseph Smith which allows criticism and shuns what Mormon critics call "Proselyting" and then also having an article dedicated to criticisms of Joseph Smith as well is not balanced in any way.

In short:

1. A criticism should not exist if there exists a previously neutral (i.e. respectful and fairly critical) article. 2. Criticism of texts (if not previously addressed) is fair game but dedicated criticism of a religious, ethnic, or cultural movement is not.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sourcing improvements. It's a bit early dating from when the listing was completed, but I can't see any way the overwhelming consensus could change in the next day or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Cherry[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) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, independent coverage. Most of the hits I found for "David Cherry" were for a history professor who writes books about Roman law, and this guy has more of a claim to notability than the comic book artist. Similarly, "David A. Cherry" mostly returns material on a prominent neurosurgeon. You'd think that, with the web's fixation on pop culture, a comic book artist would get as many or more hits than a history professor or a neurosurgeon if he was at all notable. Reyk _YO! 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being artist guest of honor at a Worldcon seems adequate notability, limited to at most one person per year since there have been Worldcons, making the count approximately 70. Being nominated for the Hugo Award 8 11 times seems also to be adequate evidence of notability, per WP:ANYBIO#1. (Sources for facts in the article would be helpful, however.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Arthur Rubin, who I see is doing good work adding sources. Artw (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won notable awards, proving he is notable. Dream Focus 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arthur rubin. book is from donning, a small but significant specialty publisher of sf/fantasy work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major name in SF/fantasy book cover illustration, with adequate markers of notability in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO #1 is tailored to this, as Arthur Rubin pointed out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a winner of 8 Chesley Awards, the highest artist award for speculative fiction artists (even higher than the Hugo, IMHO). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a WP:HEY since no one has !voted to delete since the Hugo Award bit was sourced. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per all the above; I'd close it myself as an obvious WP:SNOW, if Twinkle had that tool. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Looking at the article as it existed when it was originally nominated for deletion makes me wonder if the nominator actually read the article as his claim of non-notability seems spurious at best. At that point, at most it should have had inline references requested. At the time, article noted that he was a Worldcon Guest of Honor, a multiple Hugo nominee, and a former president of ASFA.Shsilver (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Perhaps the nominator confused a different person of the same name? htom (talk) 21:49, 27 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) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Ho (artist)[edit]

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

Deleted. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly seems from the article like he may have sufficient notability, but the best coverage I found was Daily Review article, Locus Magazine online, Infinity Plus review of one of his books. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—He was one of the winners of the 2009 MacWorld digital art gallery[19] and the 2003 International Digital Art Awards.[20] Not sure how notable those are. He is the artist who painted the cover for the Omen (album) album.[21] There appear to be plenty of other sources available to demonstrate notability.[22][23]—RJH (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Awards and Books sections appear to speak of notability, for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning artist. Artw (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other Keepers - although it is necessary to add some citations, as this is currently an unsourced bio. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as winner of multiple awards and recognitions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just another in a string of IDONTLIKEIT nominations by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to assume good faith. The nominator makes no such request for deletion based on not liking the article subject. freshacconci talktalk 21:36, 26 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) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Detwiller[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) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't find substantial, independent coverage on this person. There's lots of stuff by him, but not a lot about him which suggests that he's prolific but that this hasn't translated into being very influential. Reyk _YO! 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A game designer is notable if they have created notable works, which this person has done. Dream Focus 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was interviewed in Examiner.com but I can't link to that interview because that website is on the Wikipedia blacklist right now. Dream Focus 00:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner is not a reliable source. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Examiner.com is about as wise as citing a common everyday blog. There's good reason its on the Wikipedia blacklist. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well known and influential figure within the RPG world. I've added a number of sources and will continue to source and expand the article. Artw (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Most reference are about games he worked on and mention him or interview him, however there are no references that highlight him as a developer. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing appears to be sufficient now. BOZ (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable based upon Origins Awards, publications, and refs.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in sources, all non-primary sources are trivial mentions. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has written and illustrated a number of notable books for RPGs and is well-known in the RPG world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a winner of multiple Origins Awards. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the reasons cited above. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable based on awards. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - created award-winning work and it can clearly be expanded into a well rounded article. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably also WP:GNG. Claritas § 15:58, 28 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) 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Stockdale[edit]

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

Long term unreferenced BLP. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two-time Daytime Emmy winner. Please read WP:BEFORE. Now it needs rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewing notability standards at WP:ARTIST:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. N No evidence of this.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. N No evidence of this.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. N No evidence that any of this individual's work has been the subject of a book, film, or multiple periodical articles.
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. N The only arguable one is c, and only if you consider Daytime Emmy's as "significant critical attention". Personally, I do not.
See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics. N This individual is not an academic.

Additionally, the fact that the article is terribly written, full of unnecessary redlinks, and almost completely unreferenced isn't helping its case. SnottyWong ^confess 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won notable awards, and his music is heard in many notable television shows. Dream Focus 04:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two time award winner... can only be verified in a database... keep and discuss merge if the rest of the article can't be verified... Arskwad (talk) 15:05, 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 redirect to Lakeville Motor Express. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeville motor express[edit]

There is another page for this entry it is Lakeville Motor Express. This page was created incorrectly and a new page was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketolson (talk • contribs) 2010/06/15 19:31:29

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect ~~as per A7, no indication of notability~~ to Lakeville Motor Express as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 13 or more blocks in a game[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:OCAT#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. What is the difference between a player with 13 blocks and 12?TM 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - And what's the difference between 12 blocks and 11? Or 11 and 10? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The exclusivity of how many players actually achieve the feat. Akin to List of National Basketball Association players with 12 or more blocks in a game but even fewer occurrences of an event does not make it less notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We definately should have an article that lists the top amount of blocks per game at the college level. The problem comes with determining where to draw the line. Draw it too high and you get only one or two names on this list, which makes the list not really useful. Draw the line too low (like 5 blocks) and you will have a ridiculously long article. The line at 13 blocks seems good to me. Ideally, ten blocks would be nice since it is a round number, but I am afraid that would be too big a list. Remember (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no particular reason for choosing "7%", "$30,000", or the 100th episode as cutoff points in these cases. Likewise, a district with 3,800 students is not meaningfully different from one with 4,100 students. A better way of representing this kind of information is to put it in an article such as "List of school districts in (region) by size". Note that Wikipedia allows a table to be made sortable by any column." Wikipedia is not a sports website. There is nothing meaningful about getting 13 blocks in a game, or nothing more meaningful than getting 12 or 14 or 11. This is the definition of arbitrary inclusion, as clearly spelled out by the guidelines.--TM 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we better delete every page on {{NBA statistical leaders}}, {{NCAA Division I men's basketball statistical leaders}}, the "Records" section of {{NHL topics}}, many of the articles on {{Major League Baseball records}}, and a lot of the articles found in Category:National Football League lists. I could give myriad more examples. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is totally invalid here and you know that.--TM 06:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single-game statistical all-time performance lists are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jrcla2 and Tony. (From looking at the list, I can see why 13 was selected as the number of blocks for inclusion—it takes in all of the top 10 performances plus ties.) — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see deleting an article simply because it has a silly title, and it does have context and it does rely upon more than one source. However, the limitations of scope are pretty arbitrary, and it's drawn from page 18 of the NCAA Division I men's basketball records that they looked at has a list of players who have had at least 12 blocks during an NCAA Division I men's basketball game between 1985-86 and 2008-09. The author has chosen to go with at least 13 blocks rather than at least 12. [24]. Perhaps some mention can be made of the recordholder in other NCAA divisions and in NAIA, or about performances from prior to 1985; this hasn't necessarily reached its limit. Mandsford 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename perhaps? You could refer to them as having the "highest single-game block totals" or some such thing. --B (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to something like "List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players by single-game blocks" or something like that and explain the criterion for being listed (whatever the decided upon number) in the lead. Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and maybe rename, per above. Yes, 13 is an arbitrary cutoff, but you have to make an editorial decision like that when working on any list of superlatives. Zagalejo^^^ 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Snowball Keep per irrelevant nomination ratioanle. Vodello (talk) 19:21, 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 delete. The lack of sourcing means that this does not meet our inclusion threashold Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie-Wiki[edit]

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

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity (WP:WEB). Not relevant for Wikipedia. --Harbelser (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The irony here is palpable, and threatens a recursive loop the size of Belgium. But, in this case, I can't really find satisfactory sources, English or German, to use as references. There's the one article, but wikindex and the site itself don't pass muster. Happy to look at this again if more sources are found - and I stress that it's a great project. Just might not be notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! First, sorry for the bad English, it is a Google translation: The project is similar to Deletionpedia, a rescue portal, here, however, articles can be created and edited. This is not advertising, it´s a project description. It also collaborates with the Wikipedia project "Other wikis". Lady Whistler (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello ladies and gentlemen, I finds this project encourage very much. Unfortunately, I do not know really which criteria they see in it? I see reasons for a deletion here on no case! Please, they think over your behavior and found your opinion. ( This is no English of Google;) )

In addition, this is a German Wiki, I see there no irelevance (prevarication) for the English Wikipedia!!! They possibly? Greetings from Wikia (Helper) Michael McCouman jr.15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.108.127 (talk)

Keep first of all, the nominator for this deletion seems to be a single purpose account. There is this entry plus an entry on the articles author, in German fooling the author. This behaviour should not be supported. There are +12.000 article in this wiki project, most of them deleted from de.wikipedia, some articles are really interesting to read. I would perfectly understand your deletion since it is in german, but please don´t be fooled by this single purpose account. Thanks SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While there may be some concern over a new account nominating an article for deletion, other concerns stand - and I'm happy to keep the article if sources exist to show it has some notability. Are there articles or other reliable sources that discuss the website? My concern is that I can't find any such reliable sources, in English or in German, to show notability - and we can't keep it if that's the case. Your concerns about the nominator are noted, but please address my concerns as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here are the contribution of this single purpose account greetings SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ SlartibErtfass der bertige and Lady Whistler are both poor English-speaking authors of this small German website. Don`t take them seriously. --Harbelser (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow, your 4th edit. Thank you btw SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Harbelser, You're the nominator, it's presumed that you recommend deletion. No need to do so twice. Also, please comment on the article and its merits (or lack thereof), not on the editors defending it. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read this edit! User:Harbelser leads a fight with Whistler's Lady Marjorie Wiki --Druffeler (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a talk page, not an edit - and doesn't seem to discuss this article at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:23, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harrison (comic artist)[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) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established british comicbook artist with a long history of work. Article could do with some better sources but is esentially sound, and has sources sufficent to meet WP:N (Lambiek etc...) Not seeing any particular BLP issues Artw (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- six sources, of which none are sufficient to meet WP:N. There's two blogs, one thing that Harrison wrote himself, a passing mention on some comic that Harrison could not get published and has had to self-publish online. The least insubstantial of these sources is a single paragraph on the Lambiek thing, and just looking at that site makes me doubt its reliability. Reyk _YO! 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lambiek Comiclopedia is actually pretty well established and respected. It's been used as a reference multiple times on Wikipedia. Artw (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone's work is notable, then they are notable for creating it. As for coverage, searching the news archives for his name and "comic book" I find some results. [25] The Washington Times one can be used to verify he is the comic book artist who did work on the Ultimates first issue. Of course that information can be found on Marvel's official website, listing the credits. The Altanta Journal article seems to be about some of his work. Its pay-per-view so I can't access it, only the summary listed in the Google news search. Dream Focus 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Someone's work being notable does not necessarily equate to the person being notable. Reyk _YO! 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure the Atlanta Journal article is not about him, FWIW. Plenty of other sources out there to add to the article though. Artw (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Washington Times piece does appear to cover his work (I'd guess Glimmer rats or Durham Red) but access looks tricky

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. The sources in this article do not establish notability per WP:N. SnottyWong ^converse 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Reyk and Snottywong, there's simply not enough coverage for him to meet the WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE either. Claritas § 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications please leave me a note on my talk page and I will withdraw this nomination. "Comiclopedia", "Comic Book DB", and a bunch of other blogs and directory sites don't really pass muster. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While databases (and other tertiary sources aren't a sing of notability, as their remit is clearly to include as much as possible) Lambiek and their Comiclopedia is reliable and inclusion there can be seen a sign of an artist's importance (as they don't try to be comprehensive, focusing on the bigger names), especially for European artists where coverage might not be as extensive as American artists. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I'm still working on digging out the sources - there is a solid interview (in print and not online as far as I can tell) and good coverage in Thrill Power Overload (about the history of 2000AD) - there are also a pretty impressive review [26]. I would like to see more on his concept work but that should be enough to get a well rounded article out of this, Lambiek helps as I mention above (there is also a mini-profile from John Freeman (an expert on British comics) which summarises his importance: "a stunning talent whose work towers above many other fully painted art strip creators" [27]). io9 called Loose Cannons "the best sci-fi comic that you've never seen" [28]. I might suggest a move to Mark Harrison (artist) if this is kept as "comic artist" isn't really in line with WP:NCC (although there are a few others around). (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Oh and WP:BEFORE #3 - no attempt was made to flag concerns about this article. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, exactly as as per Emperor. Vizjim (talk) 04:34, 26 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Nielsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Some minor/passing coverage does exist in news sources, but not enough to meet the definition of WP:N in my opinion. Falls flat. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep--as I said in the previous AfD. I see no reason to change my mind, though I am disappointed that no one saw fit to add the sources mentioned previously. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the soureces, than you should add them per WP:BURDEN. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have them too now--there's a link to the Google Archive search at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terese Nielsen, but I'm sure you found all those, given WP:BEFORE. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated in my nomination, there are some passing mentions, but nothing substantial. Here we are. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is both a comic book artist who has produced notable work (Ruins) and one of the most well-known and popular Magic: The Gathering artists. Furthermore, "Terese Nielsen" gets over 200,000 hits on Google. —Lowellian (reply) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lowellian. BOZ (talk) 12:02, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Cap 3wbc[edit]

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

In addition to the many issues raised the tags (COI, notability, no references, original research), there are serious NPOV violations as well. Almost qualifies for a {{db-spam}} tag. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by one of the DJs. It's barely coherent and there is no sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vo Binh Dinh[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that gives no reason why its subject is notable. Geocities and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not make a case for notability and has no reliable sources. It was unreferenced when put up for PROD, but the sources added were a Wikipedia article and a number of references to dead links at Geocities. I couldn't find reliable sources to show it passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment It's in a martial arts encyclopedia[29], a memoir of Vietnam[30] and a museum in Vietnam is known for demonstrations of it[31]. Vietnam still has a relatively poor Internet presence, at least with sites in English, so it's not surprising the "Google footprint" of its things will be less.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that talk about the art other than in a passing mention? Its existence isn't in question, only its notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Not sure these two do either.[32][33] I'm just very hesitant to apply strict standards to things in the Third World because their Internet presence is obviously going to be less. Still I'll back off a bit.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to back off. If you can provide sources showing notability, even if they're not on the internet, I'd be happy to change my vote. Even if the article is deleted, it can be recreated if you can provide sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was waiting to see if any more references would be given. Based on what's been given, I have to say that notability has not been shown. Astudent0 (talk) 20:26, 28 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) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Messenger Companion[edit]

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

Article lacks a reliable source. The only source mention in the article is a self-published source, a blog post by the author of this article (Damaster98 (talk · contribs)). Fails to comply with General Notability Guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with Windows Live Messenger would be a fair and valid outcome. Fleet Command (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (the official website of the subject of the article) has been added to the article. As such, this AfD and the reason behind this AfD is no longer valid. Thanks. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: I don't see it! Where is it? Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, there it is! A tiny little section titled messenger companion. Fleet Command (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: This article still fails to comply with GNG because Messenger Companion haven't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The source that you introduced is neither secondary nor significant coverage. After all, Wikipedia is not a mean of promoting Microsoft products. (Your blog post was secondary but was not other things.) Fleet Command (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG, no reliabe third party sources [34]. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible!!! I am sure I carried out step 3! 1000% sure. Perhaps a rollback has happened? Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any edit to the daily afd page in your list of contributions since June 5... Not a big problem, anyway (the bot is there for this). Tizio 10:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's discussion page
"Um, don't really do Wiki talk pages so this may be wrong, but I'd like to give my opinion. This article explained to me what the software was about, I would have had no idea and probably installed it had I not found this page. I suggest this page stays. -24.67.88.189 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
--Damaster98 (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: It's useful
  — Fleet Command (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Love's a Drug (Leighton Meester song)[edit]

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

Released almost three months ago with no clear indication that it will actually be promoted. It has not charted on the main chart of Billboard which means it fails Notability for songs. Should be reinstated when it actually is released as anything but a promotional single. Fixer23 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can find are these brief articles [35][36]. I would like to see if more significant coverage exists before !voting. Gongshow ^Talk 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find as well. Fixer23 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and other comment by Gongshow. If possible some of the info could be merged to Leighton Meester. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The charting positions are fake as well... 155.69.193.244 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar-Bangladesh 1 week war[edit]

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

A Google search of 'Myanmar Bangladesh war' returns no references indicating that this 'war' took place late last year and a search of 'Myanmar Bangladesh fighting 2009' also returns no results. The best I could find was this news story from October 2009 which talks about rising tensions between the two countries but no fighting. The US State Department's summary of the diplomatic relations between the two countries here actually states that " Bilateral ties with Burma are good, despite occasional border strains" and makes no mention of any fighting. Similarly the International Crisis Group's pages on the two countries here and here don't have any references to bilateral tensions, much less warfare. As a result, this article appears to be about either a made up war or an exaggeration of the tensions which did occur. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nominator's rationale. Seems like an overstatment of border tensions with no actual fighting between formed units. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - as hoax. No such war happened, or is mentioned, even in Bangladeshi media. --Ragib (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be more of a case of an exaggeration rather than an a hoax. Tensions between the two bordering nations are to be expected, but posturing, going on alert, etc. is not the same as war. Things of this nature would normally get mention in an article called Bangladesh - Myanmar relations if such a page existed. It would be an easy construct if someone wants to take up that project. Mandsford 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just reverted this series of edits which used references to this story about tensions in November 2008 and this story about Burmese border police wounding Fishermen in June 2009 to support the article's claims that there was a war in late 2009 which involved "one week of small naval confrontations a ceasefire that was brought on by India was agreed with no official victor.". There appears to be an article in all this (with Bangladesh - Myanmar relations being the logical starting point), but its not about a war in late 2009 on the basis of these stories and the stories I identified above and it would be better to start from scratch than build on a deeply flawed foundation. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just created that article, along with the stories about the border tensions at Burma-Bangladesh relations (using the name for Myanmar which is preferred in Wikipedia articles). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on creating the article. My only nitpick is based on my understanding of the naming protocol is that the nations get listed in alphabetical order for the sake of consistency, hence we have "Thailand - United States relations" and "United States - Zambia relations". Thus, "Bangladesh-Burma relations" would be the title under that rule. I know, I know, WP:SOFIXIT, just giving notice here. Mandsford 12:43, 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 keep. It is near unanimous. Non-admin closure Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoriah Miller[edit]

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

Blatant promo/ self promo, Unverifiable and bogus claims and sources Gskphoto (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources appear to be real. For some reason you have used the name "Zoriah_Miller" rather than "Zoriah Miller". I am correcting this. TFD (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (refs) claiming awards and publications are linked to Zoriah's own bio and several other personal websites owned by Zoriah Miller himself. No proof of publication, exhibition or work with international organizations have been shown. Gskphoto (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question The sources for the article are currently something in "BagNewsNotes", an article in the New York Times, something in Epic Edits", a bio page at mondofragilis.fr, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a YouTube, and something in Wired. Which of these are "linked to Zoriah's own bio and several other personal websites owned by Zoriah Miller himself"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer BagNewsNote, A Clynical Psychologist's (Michael Shaw) private endeavour, hardly qualifies as a reliable source. // The bio page in Mondofragilis, is exactly that, a bio page. copy pasted from Zoriah.net // I accept the other links for what they are, Mostly criticism. (except for the Youtube show)Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Keep. WP:BLP is satisfied by the NYTimes and Wired articles on the page. Whether or not the whole article should stay in its current form is another issue; surely the EL section can be trimmed quite a bit. For the record, the nominator has admitted they "have an axe to grind with someone who is actively giving a bad name to my profession, behaves in a completely unethical manner, and spends more time self promoting himself". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2 articles, mostly negative, are do not create relevance or notoriety. How does my opinion of Zoriah change anything? I am offering you an insight from the inside the Business (where i am). Not just a wiki editor's view (where you are). please remain professional and impartial. [Added in this edit by Gskphoto. Reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  - Yes, Gskphoto, you are indeed inside the photojournalism business. This is the kind of claim that's easy to make but usually hard to back up; but for you I happen to know it's true. Yes, you're a professional. But you hardly seem impartial. Annyong is not doing it for the money; he's an amateur. So am I. (If you're looking for a professionally edited encyclopedia, see Britannica.) Please become amateur and impartial. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes verifiablity, the objection raised by Gskphoto. Whether or not it passes notability, that was not the issue presented for deletion. TFD (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Notability is absolutely one of the main issues. read the history and the recent claims by all parties. // 90% of the article still does NOT pass verifiability. only 3 links do none of the backing up any form of notability or any of the claims in favor of Zoriah's claimed success. Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  - Gskphoto, you have already voted ("!voted") "delete". I have therefore deleted this second vote of yours and all your subsequent votes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have worked with Zoriah Miller on and off over the course of seven years and have not found anything in this article that I would consider to be untrue. There was no debate on this subject until Zoriah offered a workshop in Haiti which was for some reason considered unethical by some of his peers. A simple Google search for "Zoriah" brings up dozens of publication credits, tear sheets etc. And does his photography not speak for itself? What is the issue here? If there is something in the article that people are opposed to then propose a change, but there is no way anyone can say that Zoriah has not had an influence on the industry and photography as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.34.31 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is very strange, for just four minutes after saying that you "[had] not found anything in this article that I would consider to be untrue", you made changes to it. One of these was to add Upon review of the case by military officials, Miller was allowed to keep his military credentials and given the right to go on further embeds. This may for all I know be true, but we can't just take your word for it. What evidence can you present for it? ¶ And does his photography not speak for itself? If it is entered in competitions, book proposals, and so on, yes it does speak for itself. In Wikipedia, no it does not. ¶ there is no way anyone can say that Zoriah has not had an influence on the industry and photography as a whole Oh? Zoriah Miller has not had an influence on photography as a whole. There, I've just said it. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, persuade me -- or rather, persuade the readers of this article -- with reliably sourced evidence for such a large claim. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is changed often. I have gone through and made further edits to it. Stating that Zoriah Miller's work in Iraq brought to light issues of unethical journalism is false. The word unethical had never been applied to him until he offered the Haiti workshop. A quick search on the internet shows his work on at least two of the photo agencies websites, the others needed passwords to enter. I contacted Zoriah and had him place a tearsheet from Newsweek on his site and he also has a photograph of himself with his co-workers at the Red Cross. Placed a link to this. He was allowed to keep all of his military credentials when his case was reviewed by Seven Boylan and gen Petraeus. Would you like me to contact him again and have him show you a copy of his military credentials so that we can consider this proof? Obviously he cant place this online. He also has a letter from the VII Photo Agency stating that he was one of the winners of their portfolio contest. There are certain things that are difficult to offer proof to, yet they are still true. I will do my best to get any proof necessary to clear his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.34.31 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Not true, a Google search of Zoriah brings back 0 tear sheets or real publication credits (outside of his own network of websites)125.25.116.156 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  - I've stricken and unbolded this "Delete" ivote because it was likely made by someone who has already commented here, but forgot to log on (and hasn't understood that only one ivote/editor is allowed). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Where is the proof to any of the claim that he is now allowed back in? both articles, and Zoriah's own blog say he was kicked out, and nowhere is it mentioned that he was allowed to go back. Further more, as a "war photographer", he has NOT gone back to either Afghanistan or Iraq since this episode.[Added in this edit by Gskphoto. Reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- ~~Delete~~ What influence? Zoriah is a kid in the industry without any recognizable award (Pulitzer, WPP, POYi, Visa pour l'image...) any notable publication or exhibition, no present or past contract with known publications or any presence whatsoever in the Newspapers and magazine industry.Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Keep I have also worked off-and-on with Zoriah in an editorial capacity for nearly two years. This wikipedia page was up without issue until the controversy surrounding the Haiti workshops erupted. From a notability standpoint, I don't know why being the subject of a New York Times article as well as a documentary television show — both of which revolved around his profession, which this page is about — would be a cause for disqualification. This is not a self-promoted page, as links in question click out to third-party sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napereditor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue. As long ago as March 2007 I pointed out that the article as it then was lacked any independent supporting evidence. And that wasn't just an unfortunate anomaly: half a year later (in this series of edits) I needed both to remove footnotes that appeared to "source" assertions but did not do so, and to add "fact" tags. I was a bit half-hearted with the latter, leaving in such grand assertions as that [his] work has been seen in some of the world’s most prestigious publications, museums and galleries -- an assertion that for all I know was true, but was unadulterated by any evidence whatever. What did happen in February 2010 was the arrival of Gskphoto (nominator of this AfD), with his exclusive interest in Miller. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ very little doubt remains that this article was written by Zoriah himself, including the latest keep comments, I doubt very much that anyone else could be participating in those self delusions of grandeur . // Any unchecked fact should be removed immediately, according to the rules. Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- Gskphoto, you are extraordinarily quick to infer the hand of Miller. In this edit, you write: Hoary: Are you related in a personal way to "Zoriah"? I doubt you would answer the question honestly if you are, but the question still remains. And in this edit, you write to/of me: I'm guessing you must be one of his friends, or Miller himself. Possibly you are too quick to make such inferences. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Lack of notability and unverified Self PR and glorification of half truths and whole lies are the main issues here. IMHO, it has been established properly. Don't make this personal or another Wikipedia editor's war. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."125.25.116.156 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- 125.25.116.156, you have already voted ("!voted") "delete" above. I've therefore struck out this second vote. (Incidentally, you and Gskphoto have a curious resemblance to each other.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate this person's notability. Any problems with the article can be easily fixed at a later date. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some person using a Bangkok and a French IP number has been keen to tamper with the comment immediately above, on the grounds that the arguments given don't (in his or her view) merit "strong keep". The IP is free to argue this. The IP is not free to tamper with a signed comment. Any further tampering will lead to a block long enough to outlast this AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not convinced Miller meets WP:BLP. Times article is really a one-eventer, and the other coverage is rather incidental. It's definitely a close call, and hard to sort through with all the other issues with the article...I could certainly be convinced otherwise if better sources were found in which Miller were the primary subject Vartanza (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have kept up with this whole thing all the way from lightstalkers, its absolutely flabbergasting to think this thing is still going on. And what have I taken away from all of this ? Zoriah is absolutely right, I mean just look at the absolute obsession has keeping this going. Its completely obvious that this isn't a outcry from the photojournalism community, its the personal vendetta of one or possibly a handful of people. These are people who obviously have wayyy to much time on their hands and think wayyy to highly of themselves in their moral turpitude. This only thing that has no legitimacy in this argument are the people and comments that started this debate in the first place. Zoriah's work speaks for itself, if you want proof of who he has been published with, why don't you get off you lazy ass and find it, why should someone who creates such powerful imagery that makes a clear impact on our world, have to prove himself to anyone. Its clear that any of these people who has brought this discussion to this point clearly have no care for the developing world or the stories they are covering, if they did they would realize that there are not that many people willing to go to the lengths Zoriah does to obtain his imagery. These people are a clear obstruction to any progress or attention Zoriah's work might get, or whom it might help. What have I taken away from all of this ? The photojournalism world is full of wannabe's who aren't out there working and shooting, instead they spend an alarming amount of time trolling anything and everything Zoriah posts, or any article he does with a publication or blog. This is harassment, and I can't see why the law should not be involved and these IP addresses tracked, and logged. If that was done I'm sure you would find that this whole debate was started by and continued by one or maybe 3 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.182.201 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you continue any talk about invoking the law, please read and digest "WP:No legal threats". ¶ There is no mystery about who started "this whole debate"; the answer appearing both at the top of this page and at the start of its history is User:Gskphoto. ¶ Zoriah's work speaks for itself / someone who creates such powerful imagery that makes a clear impact on our world / Some other IP previously made near-identical claims, and I responded, above. ¶ if you want proof of who he has been published with, why don't you get off you lazy ass and find it / Apologies for the laziness of my ass, but the reason why I couldn't find the evidence that you claim exists was that when I looked for it in Google News and indeed Google in general, I got no good hits for it. Yes, I got a lot of claims by third parties of this or that, but the third parties tended to be rather dodgy. This does not mean that their and your claims are untrue; it merely means that I couldn't find the evidence. If you have links to it, post them. ¶ Do try to avoid words such as "ass"; these tend to upset some people hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: / 1. per nominator. / 2. I've known Zoriah for years. This article was quite clearly written by himself (the history, and older versions offer quite an insight), as well as the responses on this talk page. And I can tell you, nobody thinks this highly about Zoriah, except for Zoriah himself. I never had a problem with the dude, He's actually a cool guy, but I'm rethinking my whole image of him after reading what he writes about himself here. This is a seriously shameless plug and it's completely delusional. / 3. Hoary; You seem to make some excellent points in favor of a Delete, so how come you start with a Keep? / 4. 184.76.182.201; the discussion on Lightstalkers.org involves dozens of people condemning Zoriah, not 3. I am yet to see 1 that took his side on the Haiti workshop matter. / 5. 82.226.34.31; Interesting that you chose to scan the Newsweek tearsheet from the 2004 Tsunami. That's the only one that wasn't contested by anyone here. So it really doesn't help your cause. And a single publication from 6 years ago, really doesn't add to you argument of notability./ 6. TreasuryTag; Writing strong keep in bold, followed by no arguments, no new information, no explanation doesn't make for a strong keep. you write: plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate this person's notability. but you offer none. / 7. I think it's time for a Delete (ASA the 7 days are up) as nothing new has been presented during this discussion to support keeping this article and I believe the per nom arguments have been well established (funny enough, mostly by the other side). This article is in clear breach of both Wiki rules and Wiki standards. / P.s- Gwen Gale; Where does it say one vote per editor? Please point me to a link. If an editor has a new, different point to make, I don't see why he/she couldn't start it with another delete. 91.121.124.22 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — 91.121.124.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Formatting condensed for readability, and the !vote from this obvious sockpuppet was boldly un-bolded. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, Special:Contributions/125.25.93.117 (TOT Public Company, Bangkok) tampered with another person's signed comment and made it clear that he or she was Special:Contributions/91.121.124.22 (OVH, France). This makes TreasuryTag's "debolding" of this second "Strong Delete" entirely appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: 91.121.124.22 (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked without prejudice as a confirmed open proxy. It may or may not have been used by another user with similar views participating in this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 91.121.124.22 who is the same as 125.25.93.117 and who has a remarkable similarity to Gskphoto, you start off with various unsupported personal comments about Miller that reflect more poorly on you than on him; I'll skip these, and instead move on to your "3": Hoary; You seem to make some excellent points in favor of a Delete, so how come you start with a Keep? I do not know what you mean by saying that I "start with a Keep". ¶ Your "4" 184.76.182.201; the discussion on Lightstalkers.org involves dozens of people condemning Zoriah, not 3. I am yet to see 1 that took his side on the Haiti workshop matter. I wonder why you are so concerned with lightstalkers.org. Anyway, I took a look. In this page there, Miller takes a lot of heat for his Haiti workshop. Those taking his side are inconspicuous. However, he gets a lot of sympathy from Alan Chin and Joseph Molieri (and perhaps others too, but I couldn't be bothered to read this whole page). Now, what's said about Miller in some message forum is of no consequence to an article in Wikipedia, but if you can so mischaracterize the conversation within one website, your credibility plunges. ¶ Your "6": TreasuryTag; Writing strong keep in bold, followed by no arguments, no new information, no explanation doesn't make for a strong keep. This is a comment that you are free to make. (Whether it's justified is a different matter.) What you cannot do is tamper with TreasuryTag's comments. This is something that you have already done; try it again and you'll get a long block. ¶ Your "PS": Where does it say one vote per editor? Please point me to a link. If an editor has a new, different point to make, I don't see why he/she couldn't start it with another delete. First, read about this business here. It's not a vote. If somebody has a new point to make, he or she is free to make it, introduced in some way that is not likely to mislead anyone. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been following this debate on and off since the beginning of the year. I must say I am surprised at the highly passionate level of comments made by those who wish to have the article deleted - often with little substantiation. My own research on Zoriah indicates that he deserves an article in WP, especially given the amount of coverage he has been given in sources other than his own. I just ran a new Google search on "Zoriah Miller" and came up with 26,300 results, including a recent interview. So let's leave the article and hope that those who can offer additional "facts" can add to it with suitable refs. - Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not overly convinced by some of the current sources being used though. The External links section also in desperate need of a despam. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linkfarm tagged it. --Tom (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half tempted to boldly strip out all but the official site. I am a little curious about this "reference" though: http://zoriah.com/wikipediaproof Seems to be a source put together solely the the purpose of Wikipedia - which is not only a problem in itself but it contains scans of copyrighted material. Rehevkor ✉ 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Below, ZM explains that yes it was put together for WP. Copyright matters aside, I see no problem with this, although citing it may not be a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link collection. Somebody really ought to find some reliable source on this. Personally if I came across this article on my travels I'd be likely to wipe it clean and start from scratch. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the record, I thought I should weigh in here, since it is assumed I already have. I personally feel that everyone would have much more productive lives if they stopped debating mine and got on with their own. I have never claimed to be anything special and if you dont feel that my work merits a page on this site, then so be it. I do not do what I do for prestige, I think there must be much easier ways of going about that than the life I have chosen. You are quite right, I have never won any major awards and I suppose if that is what I will be judged on I should consider submitting some images to one of the contests sometime. However that does not interest me and I feel my time is better spent working than trying to win prizes for the work. I am pleased with the awards and honors that have been given to me over the years, even if they dont meet my peers standards. // I have also been happy, for the most part, to have a wikipedia page. I feel that it leads people to my work and allows them to become more educated on subjects that they may otherwise know little about. I did not start the page and have done little to maintain it, as I have been lucky and until recently had many people support my work and very few that were offended by it. I have, upon requests from a friend of mine who has been following this more closely than I have, posted whatever tear sheets and other information I have on my hard drive, to hopefully end some of these debates. You can find them placed in no particular order, here http://zoriah.com/wikipediaproof My thanks to those who have supported me on this thread and for those who have not, I apologize for taking so much of your time and energy for whatever it was I did that has made you so upset. // Zoriah Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.172 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph released under a Creative Commons Attribution license would make a good edition to the article... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has long been a problematic article. There does seem to have been some effort at times to aggrandize ZM's work. There's certainly been considerable effort to belittle it. At least one person who is not ZM seems quite obsessed with ZM; this is mostly rather sad, occasionally it's (unintentionally) funny, but anyway it's irrelevant to the article-worthiness of ZM -- as are the obvious but fixable defects in the rather poor article that we now have on him. What's sure is that ZM has been discussed by sources of concern to WP for two easily separable matters: (i) his publication of photographs of dead US military personnel and the reaction to this, and, later, (ii) his Haiti workshop. Thus he's a person of note, and he is so for more than one event. Ergo he merits an article. I hope that this article is informative, honest and fair, and invite level-headed people to participate in this -- those who intend to laud or decry should instead do so on their own websites, or, better still, should turn off their computers and go out somewhere with camera in hand. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - this article has issues with WP:BLP1E, in that the majority of the reliable sources cover him in the context of one event. However, I think there are just about enough other sources to demonstrate long-term notability: e.g. [37],[38],[39],[40]. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You win, I'm out. (As this is most probably what you really wanted.) I have no patience for double standards and online bullying. And this comment will probably be deleted too.

Every delete except for one delete and one weak delete were stroked, unbolded or simply deleted altogether. "My" detailed reply in bullet points was "reformatted for readability" to a point (quite on purpose i believe) that is now completely unreadable. (Where in the world does a continuous block of text more readable than a nicely formatted paragraph with bullet points?) I guess that if you're not part of the elite wiki editors, you don't have the right to speak here.

I've been attacked for: not formatting properly, not using the right abbreviations and codes, having a grudge, an axe to grind, a personal relation with the subject and a single purpose account. Accused of being in Singapore, Bangkok and Paris all at once. Logging in from 3 different IP addresses and user accounts all at the same time. Identified as someone I am not. My friendly attempt to get people off their very high tree and get back to a civil discussion was quite simply deleted. I was repeatedly threatened to be blocked for "tampering with comments" although my comments are continuously tampered with, and so are other people who backed the delete request (These are, of course, said to all be me. I fly around the world just to sign in and create so called "sockpuppets").

Even my simple attempt at following the rule by pointing them out to some of you brought the saddest response on your part, you were left "linkless"... You may have your own set of rules, but nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that a single user cannot offer different Delete and Strong Delete points. But still, you think you rule your little wiki world, so you dismiss and berate anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. (I'm sure Gwen Gale and some of you are still looking for a link to show me I'm wrong. Well, good luck in the search.)

So, I hope you enjoy having this ridiculous little page on your pristine website, its mere existence says more about you than anything you've said or done here.

No matter what is said here, Anyone who is anyone photojournalism, and has heard the name Zoriah Miller before, knows that he is a disgrace to our dying profession. Nothing you do here will change that.

Goodbye Wikipedia bullies. You win. Gskphoto (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I've reformatted Gskphoto's comment above, from bulleted to conventionally paragraphed. (In case he's reading this:) The simple reason being that within an AfD bulleted points are associated with different writers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]

My friendly attempt to get people off their very high tree and get back to a civil discussion was quite simply deleted. I can't think of any deletion that might be meant here other than this one. If it is that one, then here's a confession that its author 125.25.93.117 and Gskphoto are identical. We've already seen that 125.25.93.117 and 91.121.124.22 are identical. No need for any contributor to fly between Thailand and France for this feat; rather, the contributor in Thailand sometimes was logged on, sometimes wasn't, and sometimes used a French open proxy and sometimes didn't. Every bolded word "delete" but one from him was indeed debolded -- and rightly so, as they were merely duplicates. ¶ Gskphoto, you have perhaps confused (a) article-worthiness with (b) genuine quality or notability. They're unrelated, which helps to explain how it is that hundreds of worthwhile photographers don't have articles, and why reality show contestants, Playboy "playmates", US AM radio hosts, minor members of the Bush dynasty and other nobodies do have them. ¶ If you believe that somebody who gets an article at WP is a disgrace to his or her or your profession, then this is something that you are welcome to express (as far as libel laws permit) on some other website, perhaps your own. -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 28 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) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ytcracker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As mentioned in the previous 3 AfD's this article is clear self promotion(however, impressive) and continues to violate WP:Music as well as Neutral Point Of View. The substantial edits by "ytcracker" himself and his extreme involvement of every edit made support this. The discussion for this article also clearly shows the article was created by "ytcracker" himself. I don't feel the page is noteworthy for any reason other than to support a "nerdcore" career(which is certainly not noteworthy in any way, to say the least.)

Please see the previous nominations filled with "ytcracker" fighting for his article:

May 2009 - 3rd Nomination

August 2006 - 2nd Nomination

August 2005 - 1st Nomination

In addition, "nerdcore" is self created term which appears to have been created by "ytcracker" for the purpose of self promotion. His contributions on the "nerdcore" article support this. "i'm just a godfather get over it. i'm glad it's "apparant" arguing with me is futile." he states. Further, the "Nerdcore" article is questionable as well as it is clearly not a genre of music that is embraced by the public. The "nerdcore" article even states that is not embraced by many(as well as mentioning it has received absolutely no recognition from the RIAA). In short, the "ytcracker" article is promotion for not only Bryce Case but "nerdcore" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddavis (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Chaddavis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This article has survived AfD three previous times. Setting that aside I went through the references provided. Of the 13 used for footnotes, seven were for hacking, one was an IMDb page crediting his appearance in two documentaries (on nerdcore), one was a blog (about nercore), and one was for a magazine called XLR8R. Let's disregard those as unimportant to the discussuion. That leaves us with an article in Newsweek, one in Wired, and one in the Boston Globe; all reputable publications. In the articles, he is among the subjects focused on when discussing the genre of music. Additionally, according to Wired magazine, the term "nerdcore" was coined by "MC Frontalot", not ytcracker. While I think "ytcracker" should refrain from editing his own article, I think the subject meets WP:BAND. Movementarian (Talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the independent coverage of this artist by multiple documentaries, not to mention multiple news outlets is more than sufficient enough to surpass the WP:N bar. If the article is not written in a neutral tone that is an editorial issue. Go troll somewhere else, plz. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:N, possibly for his music, certainly for the cracking of public websites. Not a snowball's chance in hell this doesn't pass. The fact that it might be used for self-promotion is irrelevant for the purposes of notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, and he should possibly be banned from doing so, the content is well documented, notable, and mostly written in an encyclopedic tone. Also I feel that nerdcore is an actual genre, regardless of what the RIAA says. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO, passes WP:N (I don't even see how this could be objectively contested, in all honesty - international print magazines and newspapers, multiple occasions!), and also passes WP:BAND. I echo others in agreeing that it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, but this has no bearing on whether it meets the three criteria for inclusion I cited. Objectively considering the policy articles, it seems hardly worthwhile to be having this debate about the merits of the writeup, which meets and exceeds each of them. Datavortex (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: come smoke some weed with me and we can edit my article together. Ytcracker (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not a lot to be said that hasn't been said already, even discounting the potentially unreliable sources, Newsweek, Wired and the like make this an article on a demonstrably notable subject matter. And in case you're wondering about the vandal edits from this IP, this is a Swiss university IP. 62.2.134.218 (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable through references to appearances in major publications. Possible NPOV issues should be resolved through editing, not deletion. Please see relevant sections of WP:DEL, such as "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." -Fadookie ^Talk 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Lock - I have two primary concerns for this nomination. This request for deletion seems a little biased or even personal, going so far as claiming that an established genre of music (nerdcore) that has existed for over 10 years now both in USA and abroad (see the various noteworthy newspaper, magazine, and television articles/interviews.) is not relevant. There is an impressive following, with Nerdapalooza *nerdcore music festival* pushing quad-digit numbers yearly, and tours such as mc chris' current one (which ytcracker is in no less) selling out every show (check the numbers). My secondary concern is the mention of ytcracker editing his own wiki. It seems to either be someone confusing him for user rmk or claiming that repairing vandalism is a form of vandalism in itself. 4 nominations really? Once the article proved noteworthy the first times with the international tour, television, movie, written media, and mainstream successes it should be an open and shut case. chozo_ninpo (talk)09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Lock Why 4 nominations??? Like mentioned earlier....this request for deletion seems personal.--L. E. Evans 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect to Riichi Ueshiba. Contact me on my talk page if you want this userfied. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Girlfriend X[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. This manga does not seem to meet either WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object to this article being deleted. This manga is still ongoing, and this article needs more work, and could be improved in several ways both now and into the future. According to OneManga.com's ranking, it is the (as of typing) 49th most popular (out of 1100+), so one could say that it is in the upper bracket of popularity. I also think that it can meet the "modern era" criteria after improvement to this article (sources etc). I'm almost sure that this already meets the ISBN minimum, though they said that that was more exclusive rater than inclusive. Basically, I don't think this article should be deleted, it should be improved. -- Hamster2.0 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some research, it doesn't appear that any reliable sources have reviewed this manga yet. Besides failing the inclusion criteria, there would be virtually nothing to write about other than a plot summary and some publishing information (keep in mind Wikipedia isn't a catalog). The original author should ask to have this page userfied and if/when it gains some third-party coverage it could be re-created with the proper real-world information expected of encyclopedic coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, there's a couple of reviews in the first two pages of that search of yours, such as this one. If those sites aren't reliable sources, why are they being kept in the search? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Gwern's tailored Google search is far from perfect so some cautions is required with results. Yea, some non-RS websites reviews get into the search results list. --KrebMarkt 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for reliable third-party sources is not turning up anything besides forum posts and illegal scanlations websites. The popularity of the series on an illegal scanlations website does . The manga also doesn't appear to have been published in other languages besides Japanese and Chinese (Taiwan). Unless someone can find a couple of reviews from reliable sources from these languages, it fails the WP:BK and WP:NOTE notability/inclusion guidelines. A redirect to the author's article, Riichi Ueshiba may be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 10:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew someone would eventually get around to nominating all the important, great series that deserve pages but aren't getting licensed. Guess that's this week. Since Japan appears to produce no content that counts as a source, none of these will be saved, and I guess we should be grateful the deletionists let it slide as long as they did. It's a crying fucking shame, though. Non-notable trash that ANN and AoD reviews gets kept, and great but largely unsourceable masterpieces get deleted unless they get an anime somehow. I'd try and get my own website submitted as an RS, but even if it did pass, that would only be one source. Until Japan wakes up and makes a few decent websites, not much use in editing Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be considered a reliable source? —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from Japan are used in articles and have helped articles with notability issues. The same would apply for english, but if the sources arent there then there is not much that editors can work from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any Japanese sources, please point to them. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy on my user space if no one else does. Man i'm going to keep track of a lot of series. --KrebMarkt 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Riichi Ueshiba per Farix, this series is just not notable and as pointed out has not been published in other languages. I do not know if Onemanga.com counts as a RS and as for sources from Japan if it were notable you would think it would be all over there. This article can always be recreated at a future date if notability is improved but for now I also feel a redirect is best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onemanga.com is not a reliable source because it is a scanlation aggregater and illegally distributes scans of manga series without the creator's or publisher's permission. The website has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case, hmm well the only keep arguements I see are that this can be improved with sources, this article has been tagged over a year now though amd sources have been looked for time and time again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published for years in a notable manga magazine, so its notable. You can't realistically expect other magazines to review something their competition has, and this sort of thing doesn't get reviewed anywhere usually. So you have to think for yourself and use common sense if its notable or not, not just wait for some reviewer to tell you so. Note, we had this conversation dozens of times over the years, so don't expect me to bother responding to the usual nonsense certain people always say in response. A notable magazine says its notable enough to publish it, then its a notable manga. Dream Focus 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited though, where are all the sources that prove notability? if this manga were voted such and such popular in the magazine and it had a 3rd party reliable reference then maybe but in this case no. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources, and the "popularity" on an illegal site that is blacklisted and against policy to link too is less than insignificant. How long it has run is irrelevant as is its age. As it is, it fails WP:BK and WP:N and the only verifiable thing about it is title, author, plot, and publication dates, i.e. all stuff from the primary source. No objection to a redirect from the title to the author being created after deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There's a lot of Japanese blog posts about this series (and 2chan seems to like it a lot), but I'm not identifying anything that's obviously reliable. Not we have a very good list of reliable source Japanese review sites, which is a major hampering factor in evaluating notability with any sort of confidence. All of which is a shame, as it's the sort of quirky thing I expect an indie publisher to license Any Day Now. Much as I hate saying it, it's a userfy for now until such time as notability can be positively affirmed. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:00, 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 Keep Absolutely no doubt about the notability of the subject. It is not, as the nom contends an invented topic. a A simple Google Scholar search confirms that. As to S. Marshall's legitimate concern about the proper content and history: Sort that out through article improvement and editing. Mike Cline (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maghrebim[edit]

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

A mostly invented topic using a medieval Hebrew term for its title. Googling "Maghrebim" shows websites that are Wikipedia mirrors or copies of Wikipedia. Until recently was a small article, then a single editor (using several IPs and one userid) copied in a huge amount of material without attribution or GFDL compliance from other Wikipedia articles, such as Jewish exodus from Arab lands, Moroccan Jews, Tunisian Jews, Berber Jews, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment:) The article Maghrebim is very important , because although North African Jews are largely part of Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews , they still differ themselves from their other Jewish counterparts and share similar cultures and an important and similar History (French Colonization etc..).Ekarfi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nomination is confused. This topic has been of utmost importance to the Jews for several hundred years. It makes no more sense to delete this than it does to delete the Maronites or the Melkites. - Minnowtaur (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "This topic has been of utmost importance to the Jews for several hundred years."? Are you making a joke of some sort? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: arguably, could be retitled "Maghrebi Jews" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) as we've migrated other similar titles. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in the event that there is a decision to delete, we need to refactor and keep the material, since the objection appears to be that bringing this together under a single heading is synthesis, not that any of the material here is incorrect. But, again, it seems to me that the Jews whose descent is in North Africa prior to the diffusion of the Sephardim into that region constitute one of the distinct populations of Jews, and merit an article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "Maghrebi Jews" simply means "Jews from the Maghreb" - there's nothing in this article that wouldn't also be in the Tunisian Jews etc. articles. Also, for example, Moroccan Jews consider themselves to be Sephardi, not "Maghrebi". These groups either consider themselves Sephardi, or Mizrahi, or "Tunisian" etc. This article is essentially a dictionary definition at best (aside from all the material that was copied to it from other articles). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sephardi is a broader category. Maghrebim are Jews from North Africa, while Mizrahim are Jews from the Middle East. Both are Sephardim. Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian Jews are all Maghrebim. We should have articles for all of the above just as we have articles for Europe, Western Europe and France.Minnowtaur (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sephardim are Jews whose ancestors were exiled from Spain, and Maghrebim are not "Jews from North Africa". Egyptian Jews are from North Africa, but they are not "Maghrebim". Maghrebim are Jews from the Maghreb. Nothing more. We already do have articles on all these groups. Explain what one would write about Algerian Jews in the "Maghrebim" article that one would not find in the article about Algerian Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same as there are articles about Russian Jews ,German Jews, Jews of Ukraine , Jews of Poland when they all are Ashkenazi Jews. Ekarfi13 15:31 , 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi Jews article doesn't just copy the contents of the Russian Jews, German Jews articles etc. If this article is retained, all that copied material will go. Material will have to be uniquely about "Maghrebi Jews", and refer directly to the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep An absurd nomination. Could certainly use more citations and sources though. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present article and write a new article, Maghrebi Jews, per nom. As it is, all the information from parallel articles about Tunisian Jews, Moroccan Jews, etc., has been dumped here. This article should discuss the unique cultural designation of Maghrebi Jews and no more. Yoninah (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a number of reasons: 1. The article and the term it's about, albeit from past times, is an accurate description of Jews who come from the Maghreb (that's what "Maghrebim" means in Hebrew.) 2. User Jmabel (talk · contribs) was the original creator of this article and he has a record of reliability and seriousness in these kinds of topics. 3. The article has been in existence since 20 May 2004 [41] well over six years, and during that time no one thought it was problematic. 4. In fact, the nominator has had an ongoing objection to this article, mainly his dissatisfaction with what appear to be pro-Arab views [42] [43] (2005), which still needs further research but should not be the basis for the deletion of an entire article. 5. Finally, while citing and bringing material from other articles may not be the way to burnish and furnish an article, it is by no means "OR" either. So for now, this article should remain and be improved upon. If we have waited six years to get to this point, we can wait another six to see more improvements, especially if other concerned editors will be notified and brought in. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If the result is a pure "keep", this article will need a very complex history merge in order to preserve attribution. The copy/paste additions represent a significant housekeeping problem. But on the other hand, the problem with this article is not the fact that it exists—I think there's a consensus here that Wikipedia should have an article with this name—but rather with the nature of this particular coverage. Therefore with a history merge correctly performed it can be fixed by regular editing. So with deep apologies to the closing admin for giving them such a dull, boring task fixing the history, I can only recommend that the article is kept.
But there may be a way out: would it be possible to fix attribution by simply restoring to an earlier revision and deleting the copy/paste additions with revdel?—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 29 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) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Hero[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially when there are no reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 04:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - restore once the book is published, if notability for this particular work is established. Looking at the author's article, I see the majority of his books have their own articles, but a few don't, so we can wait and see. Seaphoto^Talk 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps redirect. Searching Google News brought up articles from The Independent, The New York Times, and The Associated Press. Clearly deletion isn't warranted here, but I have no objections to redirecting this if others argue against an outright keep. AniMate 07:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I`ve seen less notable books having articles. I say we should keep this article for the mean time, and as more information is released, add it to the article. There is already plenty of information on this book. Alec scheat (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`d just like to also mention that this article is now starting to take shape, including the plotline for the first two chapters. With the information in this article, I see now reason now to get rid of it if we are going to have to redo it all again. Alec scheat (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial coverage by national publications. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -There has been a release date already established so deletion of this article would be a waste of time as one would have to remake this article when publication of the book is very imminent, as it will be released in a few short months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.191.90 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony 19[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, looks like an ad. can't find significant coverage [44]. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable company; fails WP:N and WP:CORP as it has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third party sources. Appears to be an advert type posting, as article creator claims to also be the creator of its logo in his uploading of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (2012 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication that the creation of this film has begun. IMDB lists the film as "In Development", which clearly indicates that it is still in pre-production. SnottyWong ^speak 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *facepalm* Clickpop (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. SnottyWong ^babble 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just reply to a facepalm with a "just a vote." a facepalm implies that your nomination is way off.--Milowent (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Well that may be, but there is still no reason given for his vote, so it is useless. SnottyWong ^confer 04:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think any Pixar film is quite notable. This is not a film by Somebody's Garage, Inc, and the existence of the film is confirmed. Why the need to delete? PopTartS2000 06:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy that says every Pixar film is notable. Furthermore, the existence of the film is not confirmed. In fact, the sources confirm that the production of the film has not yet started, therefore we can safely assume that not one frame of the film has been created yet. WP:NFF is crystal clear that films whose production has not been started should not have articles. SnottyWong ^communicate 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (as if "strong" makes a difference). This is possibly the worst deletion nomination I've seen. It's Pixar. Come on! dogman15 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid rationale to keep this article (and certainly not a "strong" one). See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. SnottyWong ^babble 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously??? This is an ANIMATED film. Pixar films usually take 2-3 years to complete after given the go ahead because animation takes time, Toy Story 2 being the exception. The film has a release date, stars have been cast, a director assigned and the script finished. Therefore, its safe to assume the animation process has been started. It's also the first Pixar film with a female lead.Bgwhite (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. We don't assume anything on WP, we find souces which confirm that the animation process has started. I've found sources which confirm that the animation process has not started. Therefore, this film fails WP:NFF and should be deleted. The rationale behind WP:NFF is that if, for whatever reason, Pixar decides to cancel this film before production is started, then this article would have to be deleted, which illustrates the point that there is nothing notable about this film (yet) because it simply doesn't exist. Once the production of the film starts and it becomes clear that this film will eventually be released, then the article can be re-created.SnottyWong ^prattle 13:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep assuming that Brave is a regular live action film when it's an animated film. If Brave was a live action film, I would support deletion of the article. Every Pixar film was in production for atleast 2 years except for Toy Story 2. Toy Story 3 was in production for 3 years, Up 4 years and Wall-E atleast 3 years. By production I mean doing the storyboarding as in animation film this is where the heavy work is at and where production is considered underway. Pixar does 3-D storyboards and is a film unto itself. So, yes, I'm assuming Brave is following the same pattern as there is no evidence to the contrary. Using IMDB's entry for Brave is not evidence as imdb says the same thing about Cars 2 as Brave. Cars 2 is clearly in production. I can point to where Brave has been in production since September 2009, but I give as much credence to that source as IMDB. Please show me evidence where Brave is not following the same pattern and is not in production.

As for Newt, Newt was in production and had a wiki page created, just like any notable film that was in production. The film was canceled and wiki page is now appropriately being merged. If Brave is also canceled, the wiki page should also be merged.

Pixar is a special breed. At the moment all upcoming Pixar films are notable as Pixar has yet to release a bad film, all eligible Pixar films has been nominated for animation Oscar and all Pixar films have been in the top 5 money making films for the year except Ratatouille (#11).

Therefore, Brave is in production and filming by the definition of animated films, it is notable and thus conforms to WP:NFF. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making a whole lot of assumptions about the production of this film, and there are zero sources to back up those assumptions. It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not. The burden is on you for finding a source which unambiguously proves that the film is in production (not pre-production); the burden is not on me to find sources that prove it is not in production (even though I've done that already). And again, show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable, and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination for deletion. SnottyWong ^prattle 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable" WP:NFF states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore all past and current Pixar films as with most commercially released films are notable. As for a film in production, the NFF states, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" The notability guideline (WP:N) states, "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." and "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". As the production of Brave has received significant coverage in reliable sources and due to past Pixar films fame, importance and popularity, Brave is notable under the guidelines.

"It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not." Yes it does. In the NFF it states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography"... the definition given to principal photography is "movie is actually filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling"... that is for live action film and not animation. What is the definition of principal photography in animation? I suggest looking at this Wired article on how a Pixar film is made. Brave has been in atleast pre-production since 2008 and actors have voiced the script.

Therefore, I have proven that Brave is notable due to all the significant coverage in reliable sources and fame, importance and popularity of Pixar films per WP:NFF. Furthermore that animation is presumed underway per standard Pixar procedure, therefore the animated film is under production.Bgwhite (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no you haven't. Your quotes from WP:NFF don't actually appear in WP:NFF. Perhaps you're confused about what WP:NFF is. It's only the short section of that guideline which refers to future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Secondly, your comment that animated films aren't subject to WP:NFF because there is no principal photography is wikilawyering. While WP:NFF doesn't specifically deal with animated films (something I'm currently trying to change), the spirit of the guideline is clear. Until the film is clearly out of pre-production, it's not notable unless the pre-production process itself is so unique and interesting that it can be shown to be notable. SnottyWong ^gab 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. If you can't "see" the quotes in the WP:NFF, WP:N and click on the link for the definition of "principal photography" in the WP:NFF... Plus now saying it's not the "spirit" of the guideline when you have been saying show me the letter and I did show you the letter.... this will go nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's let the closing admin decide. SnottyWong ^confer 04:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bgwhite. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:N with sources in article. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see what's so confusing about Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films: "the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot," or, in this case, the beginning of the process of animation. Until a reference is found confirming that point has been reached, this article is about a non-notable topic and should not exist. The fact that this is a Pixar film is irrelevant, the fact that this is an animated film is irrelevant, the fact that the script is finished and actors have been cast is irrelevant, and the fact that there are sources is irrelevant as well. Just as Notability (music) takes precedence over the general guideline in articles about musicians, the guideline about future films takes precedence here over the general guideline. There is even a Pixar film, Newt, that appears to have been cancelled after animation began. Clearly, then, we cannot assume anything about this film's status. Xenon54 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's a pretty ironic example to use, as Newt still has an entry on wikipedia, despite having apparently been cancelled. I think the "animation started" and "single frame of animation completed" reference points for validity of an animated work are laughably outdated...in fact they were largely outdated before wikipedia was founded. Modern digitally animated films don't have a "single frame" of finished "film" until very, very far along in the process. But you surely know this. [[45]] Regardless, a film could be cancelled or simply finished and never released at ANY point in production. Are we going to suggest that something like, oh I don't know, a film about JFK or Michael Jackson or the Pope that is completed but never released doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry? I believe that Newt DOES deserve its wikipedia page for the simple fact that it apparently was a Pixar feature film that got cancelled. That in and of itself is more relevant than most films that are actually released in the US every year. Why don't we delete the page for the probably-upcoming "Hobbit films", since they don't even have a director, much less a financially viable production company funding the project? I notice that page isn't slated for deletion. And yet I am willing to bet that Brave is much further along than The Hobbit. Benpatient (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, Newt (film) will likely be merged/redirected. Thirdly, Wikipedia has clear standards for whether or not articles should be kept or deleted. Upcoming Pixar films are not automatically notable, nor are they notable just because you think they should be. There are clear standards on the notability of future films. These standards exist for a reason. Please read them. Thanks. SnottyWong ^squeal 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unlikely actually, as a cancellation of a project can itself have proper notability per WP:N and WP:NFF's allowing that films "that were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". And as that quotation is part of NFF, and as that failuure to complete is notable per WP:GNG, one really cannot use the circular logic of pointing back at NFF in an attempt to repudiate what NFF itself already quite clearly and specifically allows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film is only 2 years in the future. Georgia guy (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Georgia guy, it's only 2 years into the future, and I think that it's notable enough. [[[User:TuneyLoon|TuneyLoon]] 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep: The film is in the production stage. Quoting Mike Venturini, one of Pixar's animation supervisors, "we’re a couple of years in, with a couple of years to go". [46]. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you should keep the film page because development is still young and you should give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irockpolo's (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Common sense, improving the project and the TOPIC meeting WP:GNG... that... and there being far too much content to reasonably merge elsewhere. But a bit surprised no one even considered incubation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much content? This article is a stub! 4 sentences max... SnottyWong ^prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pixar in an upcoming projects section until it actuall has significant coverage in reliable sources, and it is confirmed to be in production beyond the rough scetches and what not. Yes, it is Pixar, but that doesn't negate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. A lot can happen in two years, and as it is now, the project itself is not notable. Having the Pixar name attached is no reason to presume it is notable when it is not even in full production yet (as confirmed by reliable sources). Remember, notability is not inherited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While in some cases a merge is worth considering... it must be remembered that each and every guideline begins with the specific caution that each should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... and it is through consensus that editors create those exceptions. This topic has its multiples of multiples of ongoing and in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources stretching from 1995 through 2010,[47][48] and per that coverage, guideline recognizes this topic could be "worthy of notice". With respects, the merging of some minor content or reference to the Pixar article does not appear to what consensus is indicating in this case... as it would seem that this could be an instance where consensus of participating editors might wish this article be one of those allowed exceptions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does this in pre-production film have extended coverage in non-trival sources? Yes it does, ergo Keep.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jackyd101. While I can see why it was nominated, the coverage makes this case fall outside any normal case.--Milowent (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nurmsook, Pixar films take awhile to be made, and it's already in the processs - Epson291 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources which indicate that this film is currently in the process of being produced, as required by WP:NFF. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your wishes to the contrary, consensus of participating editors may decide that the extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources from 1995 through 2010, and the imminence of its release, might just merit this being one of those guideline encouraged exceptions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters because this AfD is all but in the bag, but there really isn't "extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources", and absolutely no evidence of the "imminence of its release". All of the sources in this article are trivial mentions, and no one has brought any additional sources to this AfD. Just because Pixar has a marketing machine which builds hypes for its films years before they are released doesn't imply notability. As we have seen with Newt, Pixar films are capable of being cancelled just like any other film. You can't assume this one will be released just because most of the other films Pixar has announced have been released. There is no reason to jump the gun and create an article like this until there is actual evidence that money is being spent on the production of the film, and it actually has a decent chance at seeing the light of day. But, I digress, since as I already said, this AfD is all but over and apparently the inclusionists don't see it the way I do. Oh well. Hopefully the film does get released so that we don't have to waste time arguing to delete this article again. Cheers. SnottyWong ^yak 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, and not surprisingly, nothing is ever "in the bag"... but is hoped, if found by consensus that this particular topic might be decided as one of the consensus accepted exceptions, that such consensus might be respected. Not wishing to continue with WP:WAX, but the Newt article's AFD did not have as much support, nor as much discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 29 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. Moving/merging/splitting can all be discussed on the talk page (or even better, done WP:BOLDly). T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Thailand[edit]

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

Per WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR, this list is not encyclopaedic. Will never meet a reasonable level of completion, and sets precedent for even less manageable lists such as List of cinemas in California. Claritas § 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't suppose there's a vote called "Rename the article and remove what it was originally about". I think that this would work as a non-list article, based on the content that was added after it started as a directory of cinemas. Remove the list and rename it. The best part of this article is the information other than the list, which describes the culture associated with going to the cinema in Thailand. I'm astounded that the before a film, "the audience must stand for the 'Royal Anthem', which is accompanied by a montage of images of King Bhumibol Adulyadej." but it's sourced [49]. Americans are used to standing for the national anthem prior to a sports event, but it's not part of going to a movie. While I can't see having a list of cinemas for any nation, there is some good stuff here that should be carried over to a different article. Mandsford 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there's some encyclopaedic content here too - it might be appropriate to copy it to userspace and then create an article called Cinemas in Thailand based on it. This simply doesn't work as a list, which was why I nominated. Claritas § 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the intermediate step of copying to userspace rather than simply renaming it (or, as we stupidly call it so that nobody understands what's going on, "moving" it) to that title and allowing the wiki editing process to improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, per Paul, some of the content concerning individual cinemas could also be split. Claritas § 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-list content to Cinema of Thailand and split content about notable chains/cinemas (i.e. almost all, IMO) into their own articles, if they don't exist yet. I agree in principle with Mandsford's above comments. Redirect likely needed for attribution purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 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, T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch Accounting[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an ad and most of its sources are its own website. not much in gnews [50]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom - fails WP:CORP - promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop John Wynn[edit]

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

Borderline promotional piece for a minister without a clear assertion of notability or an independent source that has covered him. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established, Google check reveals nothing other than promotional pieces. Seaphoto^Talk 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried a clear up and to find sources, but essentialy nothing notable here despite the assertations in the article at various stages of it's development. Also the account creating this clearly has a WP:COI (that in itself is not a reason to delete, but just adds to the impression this is a puff piece). Essentialy most if not all information comes from the pastor's own website which is not a WP:RS. Pedro : Chat 07:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional piece on non-notable clergy Vartanza (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Yes, there is a COI/promotion issue in place, but the language of the article is neutral enough that it's not a candidate for speedy deletion as spam. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: You may want to check the contributions of Wynnbio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when this AfD is concluded to make sure there are no duplicate articles. I just deleted Bishop John Wynn (International Church Fellowship) under CSD criterion A10 as a copy of this article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional, unsourced, no indication of notability, extremely POV language ("His mother has served faithfully in ministry", "Bishop John Wynn is a devoted father of eight beautiful children", etc.). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really seeing notability here. Indeed, while the WP:COI and WP:PEACOCK issues aren't reasons in and of themselves for a delete, it does seem to add credence that it is a promotional article. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:49, 28 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 Ron Artest. T. Canens (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My World (Ron Artest album)[edit]

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

NN album, only trival G News coverage CTJF83 pride 02:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This album sold less than 500 copies, independent sources don't appear to exist, and it's already sufficiently covered in the Ron Artest article, so there's no need to merge anything. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect i mean its noteworthy considering he's the only NBA player besides Shaq to release a rap album and i didn't even know he was a rapper untill i saw this AfD but this is not noteable. STAT -Verse 03:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there is no sourced content that couldnt be adequately covered in the RA article. Active Banana (talk) 20:50, 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 redirect to 2010 NBA All-Star Game. T. Canens (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBA 2010 All Star Game[edit]

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

There is already a similar page entitled "2010 NBA All-Star Game" that is much more in depth than this article. There are also other articles with similarly formatted names. This article is just a stub that contains the same information as the more popular page, but is not necessary. Doug kwan (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 NBA All-Star Game. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to 2010 NBA All-Star Game if possible. A bold move could have saved us some trouble. Location (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've redirected it now, so how do I close the page? Minima c (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've actually wanted to redirect it too, but since the article was still floating around, I didn't know how to do that and get rid of the article simultaneously. Doug kwan (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2010 NBA All-Star Game as {{R from alternative name}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:02, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn due to sources found. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Assistance to Vietnam[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 hits in gnews [51]. unless someone can find something in Norwegian. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The more I look, the more I find. The parent agency name was slightly wrong and the organization's focus was stated too narrowly, both of which may have hampered searching. Also an English-language page on the parent's website that was cited twice has either disappeared or been moved, but I found it elsewhere and found others on that site in addition to external coverage. I noticed how closely these religious charities are cooperating, rather than competing, and I wonder if that might have reduced the impression of notability - for example I found a detailed article on what's to be done about Typhoon Ketsana relief in Vietnam and then at the end it simply states that NAV is the designated agency to do it. That's not flashy but a solid hit. I've improved the article as best I can without diving into Norwegian newspapers; I believe there is sufficient evidence of notability in the article now. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Carillo[edit]

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

Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, and no relevant collegiate history. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:FOOTY/N JonBroxton (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo^[online] 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --MicroX (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 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 redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 4). Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrangement (band)[edit]

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

Band only known for one thing i.e. auditioning for Britain's Got Talent. Therefore WP:BLP1E should apply. Also, fails WP:BAND (including criteria 9). Anemone Projectors 01:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many pages dedicated to groups from Britain's Got Talent who have not made it to the final, and it is likely that this group will continue after the program, due to their various television and radio appearances since the Semi Final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjthanel (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Anemone Projectors 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says how they appeared on "this morning" and "bbc radio cambridgeshire". These events both took place after the groups semi final and therefore point to the fact that the group has had continued interest since the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.163.107 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When used correctly though, 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/create/etc.":

this is a relevant use of other similar articles exist as there are pages for acts in the exact same position as this band; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.163.107 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Morning and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire aren't really good sources to ascertain notability; there are a lot of fluff pieces on both, I'd expect, about something like chickens that can moonwalk. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeh agreed, il go start a page for moon-walking chickens then :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjthanel (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with series four article. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent, just another reality shpw contestant. this morning is on the same channel, cross promotion? (not independent). BBC Radio Cambridgeshire not national, 1 play only. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 28 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 Free Gaza Movement. T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeGaza[edit]

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

Duplicates information contained in Free Gaza Movement, any additional information may be merged into that article. Cs32en Talk to me 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - (A10) As the nominator says, mostly duplication of another article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- if the group becomes notable outside the general movement we can then have an article for them. Seaphoto^Talk 04:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other. I agree. (I started this stub before the other one existed.) It at least needs a cross-link. ::::Aa42john (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Fratto[edit]

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

I'm finding no detailed coverage of this person anywhere. There are RSes verifying basic facts, and perhaps enough for a SNG, but I don't think so... Hobit (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thinking this might be Hobit's first delete vote, my extensive google searches reveal nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be wrong, in AfD I'm probably 25% delete in the last 6 months I'd guess. But glad you recognize me :-) Hobit (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. Shadowjams (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps redirect/merge to article on the film White on Rice, for which notability this stub relies, [52] as independent notability of the producer is just not out there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC) See... I can opine a delete too, but always like to consider WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bop Cassettes[edit]

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

Record label, who may have had some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 5 years. Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember reading about Bop in music mags back in the late 80s. This coverage exists, it just needs someone to dig it out of the archives. The label had several releases in the upper reaches of the UK Independent Chart. The label was discussed in Derek Wynne's book The Culture industry: the arts in urban regeneration and also in Steve Redhead's The end of the century party: youth and pop towards 2000. Releases also included the (fairly classic) Manchester North of England compilation. I believe the Scam label was also a subsidiary of Bop - releases included Dub Sex, Social Kaos. An important label from a key era in the Manchester music scene.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added one source.--Pink Bull 02:25, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maliksi Morales[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. 1 hit in gnews. IMDB only confirms 1 appearance. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per seeming to meet WP:ENT for his "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As U.S.-based IMDB is not quite the source upon which to depend on information about Media of the Philippines. I did find several English language articles that dealt with this child actor in some manner,[53][54][55][56][57] but we'll need input from Wikipedians with access to Filipino and Tagalog sources, so that WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not work against him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete'- notability not established, at least not for the English language Wikipedia. Even the articles cited by Schmidt (thank you for looking them up!) fall into the "what happened to him?" category, and the roles mentioned in the article are not enough to cross the threshold. If additional information could be found to establish notability, I would reconsider. Seaphoto^Talk 04:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find enough reliable references for this person, also try not to confuse this person with Makisig Morales. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 26 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible system[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable musician per WP:BAND, WP:GNG and WP:BLP - lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources. BLP-PROD removed with single ref; article previously created by same user back in 2007, it still seems non-notable Chzz ► 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup significantly. This article is currently overly promotional and imparts very little real information to the reader, but the subject does meet WP:GNG: the BBC, Guardian and Independent are significant, reliable sources. I42 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Danieleonharper (talk · contribs) left some further links on my talk page, saying "I can't get my head around how to add links etc properly e.g. to reviews";

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Punt-Made-Ethiopia-Invisible-System/dp/B0020H473M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276121027&sr=8-1
http://hangout.altsounds.com/reviews/112099-invisible-system-punt-album.html
http://www.frootsmag.com/content/features/reviews_index/revs_ind_i.html
http://www.flyglobalmusic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&Template=Fly&search=invisible+system+ethiopia
http://www.welt-musik.net/?p=3153

Chzz ► 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has a lot of notable sources, it just needs to use them. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:05, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. N. Taber[edit]

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

I believe this BLP fails the notability requirements. I have added a full set of ISBNs after checking the bibliography on Google Books and Worldcat, these appear to be self-published. I find no evidence of independent news items or independent reviews. The single review included (from the LGBT History Month site) has no evidence of who the reviewer is, and that site accepts book reviews from anyone prepared to email one in. The site oneandother is no evidence of notability as the point of the performance art installation was that non-notable members of the public took part. Unless someone can produce at least one independent review demonstrating impact then the article fails WP:GNG.

Unfortunately, I see that the page history shows some possible COI contributions and that contributor has not responded to associated notices on their talk page. Consequently notability here may be over estimated. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I found a couple of notes under his full name (Roger Taber). This one is simply a mention of a poerty reading at a London LGBT Arts Festival, but this one is a little more extensive and describes him as a professional poet. I'll add them in to the article and see if I can unearth anything additional. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this BBC blurb describing him as a "top poet". That seals the deal for me, I've changed my opinion to 'keep'. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, probably sufficient. I note that the Scarborough Evening News and the BBC Somerset news both count as local sources rather than national and are weak evidence of impact in the GNG context. Fæ (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although my original intention was to endorse deletion based on the former state of the article, I'm finding many mentions in various local papers and reputable primary sources. He certainly does seem prominent and well recognized within the LGBT community. As poets do not always receive the same amount of attention as novelists, the fact that I am able to find so many references to him being a noted poet solidifies notability for me. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:10, 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) 00:42, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the points above are sound, and document that notability exists - Ponyo's research seals it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:28, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Rock[edit]

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

Article's subject is a musician who has not released an album. He seems to meet WP:BAND only by having a single on a country's national music chart, as it is stated that his song "Baby June" reached position 97 in Ireland in 2010 and 1xx positions in New Zealand, Switzerland, and Sweden.

The interviews used as references seem to be self-promotion with conversation about politics in Iran coming secondary; from the content now in the article, this person is pushed as notable for his music and except for the unreferenced chart positions, I do not think he meets notability criteria.

By the way, what chart positions matter? Does having a single that makes spot 97 make one notable? What about over a hundred? Has a line been demarcated? Blue Rasberry 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also just nominated Baby June (Moe Rock song) for deletion. Blue Rasberry 01:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry The page has met the required necessities for notability according to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles found at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metroparkoil (talk • contribs) 23:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IRMA only lists top 50 singles at their site (including archives eg). Unless they publish a report showing top 100 I'd say the unsourced #97 is not good enough. I'd also say the unsourced outside to 100 also falls short. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Corrente. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verdi Corrente Productions[edit]

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

This article has existed a few weeks now, with multiple problems. Summarize: reads link an advertisement, no notability, nothing links here, no reliable sources, and author has edited only this page and Inkubus, which leads me to believe this is a single-purpose account. No non-trivial third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on enhancing the page's objectivity as well as providing links and references for the company. It seems that it is a professional production outfit. I agree the page needs work.User:HarvardGenius

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable information to Michael Corrente. All I can find are press releases and passing mention. This company has not yet released a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Luther Schofill, Jr.[edit]

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

Interesting but apparently non-notable person, film director and academic, lover of classical music. Nuujinn (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the sources verify his existence and some of his work, but he fails WP:PROF and most of the sources are not reliable or independent. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a strong case can be made that Guggenheim fellows are per se notable. They are a discrete category of academics/artists thought by their peers to be at the top of their game. Vartanza (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Often characterized as "midcareer" awards, Guggenheim Fellowships are intended for men and women who have already demonstrated exceptional capacity for productive scholarship or exceptional creative ability in the arts.", from their website. Also, see the List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_1974. Would you say that these awards are based on prior notability or as a way of enabling recipients to do work that would earn notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 18 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, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a random sampling of the list of Guggenheim Fellowships and that a bit less than half are redlinked, going back to 1950, so I am not convinced that the fellowship by itself is evidence of notability. The remainder of the work - a published article, a few short films (the link to "Spurt of Blood" is incorrect by the way) just doesn't reach the criteria for notability. Seaphoto^Talk 05:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing adequate evidence that his filmmaking is enough for WP:CREATIVE, and while the Guggenheim is a worthy accomplishment I'm pretty sure it's less of an indication of notability and more something one gives academics to encourage them to be productive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 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 keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Matvick[edit]

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

Notability. A few sources (I've two, several passing mentions (see Google News in particular). Certainly enough to establish a few lines of job history. But none of the sources I've seen "address the subject directly in detail", to quote WP:NOTE. I think I was trying to be too pedantic about WP:NOTE, and wish to withdraw the nomination. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (added by nom): The ESPN source is arguable, I guess I feel it's iffy (not really secondary, promotional in context). --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of more-than-trivial coverage in many reliable sources from 2002 throu 2010[58] would seem to poke nicely at WP:GNG... and adding them to the article might seem a surmountable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 20 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, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the comment said above, this sportscaster has significant amount of coverage and therefore should be considered notable. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'm reviewing my nomination based on the comments, etc., by Michael Q, Parent5446. I have been through, as I believe I did before, the text of every readable article in that search on the first page and well into the second--I did do searches on Gnews, Gweb, Goobs before. In reviewing these results so far, I haven't found an entry yet that did more than identify the subjects job title. Perhaps I'm being blind, and if so I apologize, would either of you be willing to point me at two articles ("signficant coverage") which provide more than a sentence worth of information ("address the subject directly in detail")? Or even one, not counting the ESPN bio I mentioned in the original nom? --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Took a deep breath, reviewed the sources more. I think I was being too pedantic about WP:NOTE. Thanks for your patience, folks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own observations above. As I commented about surmountable issues, and with a grateful nod to the nominator's courteous withdrawal, this one is now on my personal list of articles that I will improve in the next day or so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for being willing to improve the article! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some expansion and got his awards sourced. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this just goes to show that the article can be cleaned up and should not be deleted. This AfD should probably be speedily kept, as not even the nominator is in favor of delete anymore. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (as nom), as an "involved party" it's inappropriate for me to do it, I believe. I believe even non-admins can close an entirely non-controversial speedy keep, however, as per WP:SK. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 26 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) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan James[edit]

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8 was to list at AfD for potential notability issues. This is a procedural, neutral nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is one of the UK's best-known bookmakers, as a cursory glance at the Google News search linked above will confirm. I'm flabbergasted that we didn't have an article on such a notable subject until a couple of weeks ago, and disappointed, but not surprised (but disappointed that I am not surprised), that the kneejerk reaction to the creation of this article was to nominate it for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The article needs expanding and tidying up, but Stan James is a major company that has been sponsoring world championships such as this for years and has much coverage. Nuttah (talk) 17:09, 19 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, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is difficult to get at the coverage due to their sponsorship of high profile events clogging up the results. However, they are a well known company in the UK. If you dig deeper in the gnews results, you get stuff like this, which is decent coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article does not state notability.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the nom is a 'neutral' procedural nomination which logically entails that your 'per-nom' vote become a neutral vote. You may want to read the discussion before placing your vote. A brief look at the above tools shows that the topic is clearly notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now expanded the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having said at DRV (without being able to see the article) that the speedy deletion should be overturned, I was sadly disappointed by the article when it was revealed. It scarcely made any attempt at claiming notability. It has now been considerably improved and makes credible notability claims, backed with references. Thincat (talk) 12:28, 28 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 Legend of the Black Shawarma. T. Canens (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing the Opponent[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for singles. Neelix (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable band, very notable guest vocalist, notable remixers. Not sure what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited. As stated in the applicable guidelines, "most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article." This single has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as Wikipedia:Notability requires. Like most singles by notable bands, this one is not sufficiently notable for an independent article. Neelix (talk) 16:12, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. I could barely find two sources for this song, outside of lyric links and music vidoes, and those two sources were little known blogs and local newspapers that mention the song in passing, which is not sufficient for notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma. Not enough info available for stand-alone article and redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma - Song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 17:02, 27 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) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sufferer & the Witness Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Sufferer & the Witness Tour

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

The article's pretty much a list. There's some prose at the top that might do good in the article for the band, Rise Against, so if the consensus is to delete this article, someone should save the prose at the top and work it into the Rise against. Overall, however, this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well if it fails this then it sould probably be deleted, but rise against toured with so many other charting and notable bands, and theyre notable themselves. keep. draynah (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:35, 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) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Nuckles[edit]

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

Despite assertion that he races in "Professional" series, none of the series he races in are truly professional, thus not only fails WP:GNG but also WP:ATHLETE/Motorsports standards for WP:NSPORT. Drdisque (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Claritas § 14:02, 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.