Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 24

< 23 June	25 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FolderPlay[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was recently undeleted as a result of this discussion at Deletion Review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The deletion review overturned a speedy delete with most commentators saying prod or afd it instead. noq (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a relatively feature-poor audio player for Nokia phones running the Symbian OS. I looked and found nothing that looked like substantial coverage in a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 25 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! 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOFT. Yet another attempt at wikiadvertisement. SnottyWong ^converse 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having looked closely at this case, I do not believe that this software meets our notability criteria. This is not a judgement on the quality of the software itself, but merely a view that it doesn't yet have enough independent coverage to support a quality article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comments:

1) Nyttend nominated the Article for speady A7, which was wrong. 7:0 consensus in Deletion Review overruled A7. Naturally, Nyttend didn't apologize.

2) The Deletion Review was closed Jclemens before end of 7 days period. This also was wrong thing to do, because already Lankiveil ruled out (on m656 user talk page) that, despite consensus, the discussion will continue for 7 days, saying " the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted " - and overruling other editors' decisions withou a severe reason is not allowed.

3) The pour article now got saved from false A7, and was returned to its previous status, with the ruling by Schuhpuppe shortly before erroneous A7, saying " I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion ". At no time, the Civility-Award winning editor Noq is knocking down the existing cleanup request down (without allowing the required seven days for submitting a better version, as ruled out by Scuhpuppe)

Guys, I'm not suggesting that sub-standard articles should be allowed to stay. I'm just reminding you the guidelines "assume good faith" and "do not bite a novice".

m656 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) It may look like a consensus is forming for deletion, but this is not really so. Not only did the editors SnottyWong and Lankiveil participate in A7 Deletion Review (so shey shouldn't participate in THIS review), but their opinion there was also used in nominating FolderPlay for afd. This is like double or even triple voting.

5) There was no majority supporting afd in the Delete Review. Only 3 out of 7 suggested afd. This is minority view, not majority. (The "prod", suggested by the Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is something completely different).

6) The remaining two editors that suggest "deletion", actually checked not yet written article. The moment I started to write it, it was "speedy deleted" by Editor Nyttend. The not-yet-writeen article spent five days in deleted state, speedy undeleted two days before the end of 7 days, and here you go - at the same day the two Editors are voting for it to be deleted...

7) Do not you know that Wikipedia editing process is intended to be learned by making mistakes? When you see an unwritten article, you are supposed to frendly recommend the fellow writer to take it to User Space. The deletion is only there in order to deal with uncooperative writers. This is a nice opportunity to learn it.

8) Now article is written, and some support of notability is provided. Please ignore the opinions expressed before the artice was written.

9) There is a link to a blog posting by an independent expert in the field of media on mobile, which clearly describes the application as notable.

If the software is not notable, how it has 449,000 results in Google? Almost half million appearances, with many more in Eastern languages...

10) The presented notability reference is not the only one, please do not delete the article and allow it to continue to be written and additional references to be included in normal process of collaborative editing.

m656 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1) The deletion review only addressed the issue of whether the application of the speedy deletion criteria was correct. The consensus from the review was the article did not qualify under the speedy deletion criteria. That is not an endorsement that that the article meets inclusion criteria. It does mean that in order for the article to be deleted, it should go through a more thorough process which this AFD is.

2) The timing of the closure of the deletion review is irrelevant to this AFD. The outcome of the deletion review was to overturn the speedy deletion. I'd point out that most editors in the review had doubts as to the article being sufficient to survive and AFD.

3) My reading of the comment from Schuhpuppe is that he was assuring you that he wasn't nominating the article for deletion by applying article improvement tags to it. The fact that he tagged it for notability would indicate that he had doubts as to whether the article would meet inclusion criteria.

4) There is no prohibition from the editors you listed to participate in this AFD. And the fact is, they both agreed that speedy deletion was inappropriate and that it should be overturned and brought here. By the way, AFD is not a vote, so they aren't voting, and their participation here isn't doubel or triple voting.

5) The outcome of the deletion was "Restored per consensus that A7 does not apply to this topic. Any editor may PROD or AfD the article at his or her discretion." It's quite clear that noq has used his discretion to nominate this article for deletion. This quite consistent with the outcome of teh deletion review.

6) I don't understand how any editor can check an unwritten article. This AFD did not appear until an article actually existed. And once there is an article, it can be reviewed by any editor participating in an AFD.

7) There is nothing stopping you from copying this article to a draft in your userspace right now. Feel free to copy it to User:M656/Folderplay.

8) I don't know about other editors but the article as it currently is written is what I am basing my opinion on.

9) Blogs aren't reliable sources. And counting google hits doesn't make something notable. Coverage in reliable sources is what is needed, and there has not been any presented. Non-english sources are acceptable so if you know of any please add them.

10) If the presented sources are not the only ones, then you really should add these additional sources. I've looked for them and found none.

-- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If blog review is not good enough - fine, it is not difficult to find a magazine article too. For example, Folder Play is discussed in PC Advisor Magazine (UK)

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3228710.

m656 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is a review for an MP3 player (hardware), and not a review of FolderPlay. Did you link to the right article? -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. It is removed. m656 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Can you please provide a link to the right article? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability now is only supported by the article by Review by Patrick Campbell in Nokia N96 http://nokian96.net/2009/07/15/nokia-n96-app-review-folderplay

( Other references only support particular points, like existence of support for a particular format, or existence of support for Chinese. They are not supposed to support notability. )

It was said by Whpq that "Blogs aren't reliable sources". It is only generally correct. For example, coverage in Techcrunch.com or Mashable.com is much better that any published magazine. There are thousands of references to FolderPlay in various unreliable blogs and forums. But Nokia N96 is different. It is like a magazine.

Check this link : http://nokian96.net/author/paddyc1988/ This is the collection of all articles by Patrick Campbell. You can press "next page". There are seventeen pages of articles. It's clear that he is an expert on mobile phones.

Nokia 96 is a strictly controlled publishing environment, more similar to a on-line magazine than to a blog. So it's a borderline notability case and there is no need to delete the article. FolderPlay is very far being hoplessly non-notable. In fact, a 100% proper article almost certainly does exist on the web, only it is difficult to find because of the abundance of downloading sites. Or maybe it is in Chinese, where it is notable for native Chinese support, or in one of languages of Continental Europe, where it is notable for letting people listen to opera on Symbian-running phones.

One should look at at the general practice of Editors *which often accept this level of prominence and notability). Consistency is among the most important components of overall quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not going to be a better Wikipedia if FolderPlay is deleted. For a software that appear at half million pages, the readers do expect to find a short answer to the question "What's that?", written in a objective, neutral tone.

Actually, Improvement of Wikipedia takes precedence over formal criteria. There even is a guidance against deleting valuable material that contributes to Wikipedia.

m656 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So where is this coverage? I can't find it. And despite your claim that magazine coverage is abundant, no evidence of magazine coverage has been produced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't claim magazine coverage is abundant, I do think the magazine coverage probably exists (given abundance of web presence). Meanwhile, the higher end blog coverage may suffice for temporarily not not deleting the article. Since there is no urgent problems with it, and there is a good chance that within say a month it will evolve into a perfect article (including perfectly proper demonstration of notability), why to delete?

m656 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The google coverage is not as vast as it seems at first sight. see this search which shows that if you follow the links it runs out at about 840 hits. probably exists is not really positive enough to establish notability. The sources given in the article at the moment appear to be either blogs or forums which are not considered WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- comment I see no evidence that "coverage probably exists". A lot of google hits is not indicative of coverage in magazines. As for why delete now, it's because the article doesn't meet notability requirements. There is no prohibition against recreating the article in the future if coverage in reliable sources occurs to establish notability. But we don't peer into the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Whpk, you have considered multiple notability-supporting

arguments separately, and rejected then one by one. Yet I think they all add up to a reasonably well motivated (by the sum of small factors - when considered together).

m656 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ne-Yo discography. Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. Consider this a keep close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libra Scale[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. there's no information here that could not be merged to the Artist's page. The album is several months from release and its singles are in infancy. Note this is it's second nomination (first one was a month ago) because it hasn't improved at all since then. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable information to Ne-Yo discography. I don't see significant coverage about this forthcoming album. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this discussion. The matter for this album was resolved less than a month ago. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous nomination since it's so soon after the album was declared notable in the previous deletion discussion. Str8cash (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I beg to differ. This album is clearly not notable per WP:NALBUMS, it does not have confirmed release date, it does not have reliably sourced independent coverage and still has fact tags. Most of all there is not enough coverage to create a detailed/sizeable article. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment in last AfD and per Str8cash. Has a confirmed release date. STAT -Verse 05:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please can someone explain to me what's the point of having a guideline which says "where there is not enough reliably sourced information an independent article should not be created" if then articles like Libra Scale are going to breach it and people are going to support the creation of such articles...? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it would be foolish not to. Think about it. Instead of wasting our time. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a reason based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Why would it be foolish to delete it? -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no point deleting yetandycjp (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ne-Yo discography. Sorry, but I don't see anywhere enough significant coverage to justify an article at this time.--Michig (talk) 15:43, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Wilberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport as he has not completed in a fully professional series. Also fails WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is unreferenced. I am familiar with his career - he's well-accomplished for a strictly-local driver (I took the image). He even has raced in a few regional touring series (it's not in his article but I know he has a few American Speed Association starts which you can verify online if you want to spend time to look). While I don't agree that he should be required to have competed in a fully-professional series if he meets GNC, the article doesn't have reliable sources to document any sort of notability. Royal broil 00:50, 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 speedy deleted per CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red5[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted previously for a lack of notability. Still no claims to notability, no references, non-notable software that hasn't even yet reached a stable V1 release. Canterbury Tail talk 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G4 - recreation of article deleted at a deletion discussion. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:00, 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 Oregon Route 66. JForget 12:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead indian memorial drive[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. The usual process: I deleted an expired PROD entry, and the author thought this was because of a personal vendetta against him instead of a routine janitorial process, and proceeded to rather insultingly comment about it. Because of this, I have undeleted the article and automatically nominated it for deletion. No vote. JIP | Talk 22:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no sources. Becritical (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No claim made for notability, no sources at all. WP:Speedy candidate. LK (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oregon Route 66. Otherwise, delete. No indication of any notability. Reso lute 01:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are some, albeit few, references to the phrase so it may be a plausible search term.
Redirect There are some, albeit few, references to the phrase so it may be a plasible search term.--SPhilbrick T 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator please provide a link to where the article creator contested deletion, so that we can judge for ourselves whether the nomination correctly describes what has happened? I'm a bit concerned that the nominator thinks that deleting a PRODded article should be an automatic process, and that the automatic response to contesting deletion should be an AfD nomination. If such things are supposed to be automatic then we might as well have bots for administrators rather than human beings. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go: [1] JIP | Talk 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a pretty big leap from "If you are unaware of the importance of a place because you've never been there, nor live anywhere near it, please refrain from deleting it. Put Dead Indian Memorial Road back up" to "the author thought this was because of a personal vendetta against him instead of a routine janitorial process, and proceeded to rather insultingly comment about it". And that comment certainly wasn't vandalism as the nominator characterised it, but simply opposition to the proposed deletion. The subject may or may not be notable, but I would expect a more honest deletion nomination from any editor, let alone an administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that it wasn't vandalism and have therefore undone my own update to the vandalism count. However, because I have already started this AfD discussion, I want to let it run to a conclusion, and then agree with it whatever it results in. JIP | Talk 21:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being on a different continent, I have little idea whehter this is a "main" road or a minor one. If it is a main road, potentially it might get a legitimate article. Needs wikifying for a start. If kept, rename with appropriate capitalsiation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oregon Route 66 per normal Wikipedia practice. Only the very most notable common names are used for the primary article when there is a numbered route to use instead. See, for example, Golden State Freeway, Rosecrans Street, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corey charron[edit]

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

Non-notable recording artist, fails WP:NM. Lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to verify claims noted in the article or to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξ ^xplicit 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many claims of association with other artists, and vague claims of MTV development but none of it is covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable three weeks later Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charron (rapper). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It looks like the editor has been quite persistent. Charron (Musician) was created and deleted via PROD. Charron musician was tagged and bagged as a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 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. extransit (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Online Debating Championships[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Non notable event fails WP:GNG, no coverage outside specialist debating blogs, no gnews hits. Codf1977 (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG - doesn't even seem particularly notable even with the debating fanbase, and absolutely zero notability outside it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And in fact, coverage in unreliable sources appear to be very sparse as well. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm getting to the point where every time I see a university debating article on this wiki, I think "delete" before even reading it. This is a non-notable competition, coverage of which only exists in the very small world of university student debating. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - competition has received no significant coverage in RSes. Claritas § 21:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprisingly sparse coverage. Mostly specialist blogs, no RS that I saw.--SPhilbrick T 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Investment Company[edit]

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

Claims notability no sources to back up and appears to be a ocnflict of interest or self promotion article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is verifiably one of the largest construction companies in Iran (as here), but I'm not immediately able to find English language sources giving it significant coverage. However, per WP:BIAS, foreign language sources can be presumed to exist and per WP:N and WP:BEFORE no deletion should occur until a serious attempt has been made to find such sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your google search doesn't show third party coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most certainly doesn't, nor was I suggesting it does. I was suggesting it points to links verifying the claim that the company exists, and is of a certain size. One such link is here. Another is here. Given that information, as above, it's reasonable to assume that foreign language sources originating from Iran exist (government tender documents, if nothing else) and that therefore no deletion should take place until serious attempts to locate them have been made. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found in Persian, I have to say delete. I don't think simply being the largest construction company equates to automatic notability. does the largest construction company in each country get an automatic article? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually. However I was having problems finding sources for the Persian side. Likely this is because Ican't speak persian but I think we have a obligation to remove anything we can't prove conclusively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree, that's why I say delete in the absence of sources. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can conclusively prove the existence of the company and its rough size from the sources above, so verifiability isn't an issue. The issue is notability, which is a separate and higher standard. The onus of verifiability is on the person adding content; the onus of notability per WP:BEFORE is on the person seeking its deletion. To argue deletion you are obliged to have made good faith searches for likely sources of significant coverage, and come up empty. Per WP:BIAS and WP:N that includes presumed foreign language sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my comment while implicit wasn't explicit enough. I couldn't find reference before I nominated it. I looked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you searched Persian language news archives, through, presumably, some kind of Persian-oriented search engine? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note also that the article is actively under construction and is not obviously vandalism; the AfD may be premature and there may be merit in allowing the creator to continue developing the article before making a final judgement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even possibly the bigger issue is a SPA Promotion account. H.I. Co.= Housing Investment Company Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's almost certainly an conflict of interest account, and it should be closely watched. And the article will probably need to be tidied when they're done, if it survives deletion. But conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however it does add a mitigating factor when I consider it. I understand this isn't the case for everyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD tag has been missing from the article for five days [2]. I restored it. There are a few reliable sources available in Persian [3] (Google News does not cover Iran I believe, but there are some newspapers among the regular Google Hits). But in its present state this article has absolutely nothing worth keeping ... if we had an article on Bank Maskan (aka Housing Bank, which is one of the major banks of Iran and the parent company of HIC) I'd rather just propose redirecting it there. At the moment I am working on saving another article from AfD, but let me see if I can find the time to start such an article. cab (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Metropolitan90, then redirect to Bank Maskan (which I just started). cab (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation of various pages on the company's web site; see [4], [5], and [6], for example. This company may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but copying the company's web site is not the way to go about writing such an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 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 delete. extransit (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Herbener[edit]

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

Non notable academic. No coverage in secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. Has produced no major theories, books, or articles beyond run of the mill academic works, so fails WP:PROF. At best, we have a minor quote in a book for ref #4 and positions as college professor and associate editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, a think tank publication. GrapedApe (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strongest claim to notability is as professor at Grove City College, a small Christian liberal arts college that is ranked as third-tier by US News and World Report, and as an associate editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, which is published by the Von Mises Institute, a privately funded Libertarian think tank. A search on google scholar [7] shows that he has only published in Von Mises Institute publications, and that his work has been cited almost exclusively only by articles in those same publications. His work has had no impact on scholars outside that group. Fails the notability guideline for academics. --LK (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Part of the problem is that Austrian economic theory is not taken seriously in most economics departments, meaning that its adherents have to publish is small venues. The standard for notability should be his prominence within the pro-Austrian group, just as we don't demand that cultural anthropologists be well-known among the biological anthropology crowd. And being a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute does demonstrate some reputation.[8] Still, he is not at a research institution and so his being a full professor doesn't satisfy that criterion in WP:PROF. The Review of Austrian Economics is peer-reviewed, but that's a about it. I don't see any special prominence. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta-discussion The distinction between modern scientific economists and Austrian Schoolers is rather different from that between cultural and biological anthropologists. Pace WP:FRINGE ("Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is...") I'm not one to interpret Wikipedia policy as considering e.g. every anti-plate-tectonics geologist as notable merely because there are so few of them. Not that everyone who identifies as Austrian is fringe, but Austrians whose notability appears based only on publication in Austrian sources and participation at the Mises Institute get close. Counterexamples: Selgin, Boettke. Bkalafut (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - addendum There's been considerable discussion of whether and to what extent WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE apply to Austrianism on in the Wikiproject Economics talk pages especially in September 2008. A real tangle, but worth reading, and one of the consensus positions to emerge is that undue weight was often given to Austrianism on WP. It seems contrary to the spirit of WP:UNDUE to treat contemporary Austrians as notable simply because there are so few that nearly all who aren't notable among mainstream economists are "notable" to each other via participation in the Mises Institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkalafut (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I probably overstated my position. I agree that Mises-only notability is probably not enough to pass WP:PROF. I overreacted to what seemed to me to be an Austrian=Fringe argument above. My point was that we shouldn't demand that someone be at an R1 with all of their publications in the top journals if what he has published has otherwise had a major impact. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and LK; does not pass WP:PROF. A remark regarding RJC's comment above. Item 5 in WP:PROF#Notes and examples specifically mentions that, when demonstrating significant impact in an academic discipline, "the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. [...] Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Nsk92 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Metadiscussion It is one thing to say that being a major researcher on the role of women in post-Macedonian Athens will not satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but I don't think that we can say that being a major contributor to minority positions in the field of economics in general is what is covered by item 5 of the notes and examples. If his work were published only in journals friendly to the Austrian school but had made a significant impact I would say he satisfies criterion 1. Part of this stems from my opinion that Austrian economics is a minority view but does not fall under WP:FRINGE. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll add that his work has not made any impact in broader terms, i.e. he has not obviously published anything in a mainstream journal, by which I mean one that is indexed by one of the major services. There's nothing in WoS using the broadest query of "author = Herbener J*". GS shows an h-index of 6, with one paper in "The Review of Austrian Economics" having been cited 23 times. However, these stats are still way below what we normally take as satisfying WP:PROF #1. Without any intended disparagement of small christian colleges, I don't think a rank of full professor is comparable to that at a large research university, the latter of which often does imply satisfaction of WP:PROF #5 or #6. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: For future reference, the author page for "Herbener, Jeffrey" on Scopus shows citations by 12 people, and a h Index of 1. LK (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with most of the above, also see my remark.Bkalafut (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability and reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LK's reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paki (film)[edit]

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

Future film that has not begun principal photography is not verifiable as per guidelines on to-be-released films. Danger (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. LK (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation. This one is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 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. Needs improvements, though Tone 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cooke (businessman)[edit]

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

only source I can find is this. Not sure if this is enough for notability, the organizations may be notable on their own though. Pirate^Argh!!1! 20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per some of these search results. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why he is tagged as a "businessman", but per the links found by Blanchard and an independent Google search, he is clearly notable as the founder and head of a philanthropy. The article could make that a lot clearer with some rewriting. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Martinez[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. All the information about this individual is summarized at Charles Whitman, including this section. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Martinez was a major player in a very notable event. In combination with the bits about suing the producers, the memoirs, and the George Parr task force, I think Wikipedia is better served by having this as a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Charles Whitman#Houston McCoy and Ramiro Martinez. As Amatulić has suggested, I would like to see this information in an article specifically about the event (e.g. 1966 University of Texas tower shooting). While the background details of Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy are not terribly notable or important on their own, they do give us a better picture of who these men are/were. I am concerned that we lose this with deletion or a straight redirect without the merge (as what has happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston McCoy). If Wikipedia can include inconsequential details on Whitman's father (e.g. his father was raised at Bethesda School For Boys and opened a sewage plumbing business) and Whitman himself (e.g. he was altar boy who took the name "Joseph", he took piano lessons for five years, etc.), I would think some background for the men who stopped Whitman would also be in order. Location (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, along with the Houston McCoy article also under AfD, into a more comprehensive article about the notable event. This could be the Charles Whitman article, or a new article specifically about the event. It's the event that deserves the article, not biographies about the individual law enforcement officers who got a brief moment of fame from a single event. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BLP1E. Martinez and McCoy are adequately and appropriately covered at Charles Whitman. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whitman is only notable for one day. Martinez has been famous for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Jack Merridew, this is a one event that's not notable and should be deleted as such. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Any relevant information in this short article can be merged to Charles Whitman. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struck my above comment since I changed my mind. I reread the article and feel there are enough other info to allow this to be kept. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing gained by cutting out valid information and shoving the rest into another article. By merge, did you mean redirect? What information if any would be put over there? He is known for that event, and his book, and the lawsuit against the movie which he won. Notable enough to have his own article. Dream Focus 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, merging doesn't mean redirect but they can amount to the same thing. Merging means incorporating material from this article into a different article where notability is not a concern. Even if the article was redirected rather than deleted, nothing is lost — the edit history will still be there so the material can always be merged at a later time. This is preferable to outright deletion when useful material exists in an article that doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E doesnt apply per ongoing coverage. Seems to be a regular hero. No hint of this being an attack page and no reason to think the subject objects to publicity as he self published a memoir. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. He only appears to be known for his actions regarding the sniper shootings. Yes, he has received ongoing coverage, but it would be better treated as part of the article on the shootings. The coverage isn't so extensive as to warrant a separate article. Quantpole (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Remember, he is known for three events. T3h 1337 b0y 21:52, 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. Tone 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Heavy Metal[edit]

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

Contested prod of a forthcoming music single. The editor contesting the prod has said that there is evidence for the single's name and release date, but this is not enough for WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NSONG. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Twitter is not a reliable source, and I can't find anything else. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. LK (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 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. Tone 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of highway route numbers in Oregon[edit]

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

Article conveys no real information, there isn't a list of highway route numbers for every other state, and there doesn't need to be. WikiDonn (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Were it not for the fact that we seem to have articles about every single frickin' one of these highways, I might agree on notability, but there's no real reason offered to delete. It's a sortable table and it does convey real information, about the location and the opposite ends of each road. As a navigation aid, it's acceptable under WP:CLN. Mandsford 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is in effect the list of Oregon's state routes; it only has this name to differentiate it from List of named state highways in Oregon. We actually have one of these lists for every state, pretty much; most of them are under names like "List of numbered routes in X", but Oregon is a special case because of its named highways. I agree that the title's awkward, and the page probably should be moved to a better name, but that's hardly a reason for deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it will take a little prestidigitation. List of numbered routes in Oregon is a redirect to State highways in Oregon, which in turn has in it links to this page and to the named highways page. Undoing the redirect is easy, but then this title would be redirected to that one, etc. etc. The nomination wasn't made based on the article's name, of course, but I can see how the unconventional title suggested that there weren't such articles for other places. Mandsford 13:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more detailed reasons, it goes against WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not... mere collections of internal links". It also says: "Wikipedia articles should not read like... travel guides...Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, or Wikia travel instead". I also think it loosely goes against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the links are not to articles, but sections of articles of bigger roads that include that section. So it is basically a list of links to other more detailed lists. As said before, we have a list of named roads in Oregon, and that list is notable, but since these ones don't have names this list is not notable enough for inclusion here. I would also suggest everyone here read WP:Listcruft especially meaning #4,7 and 8. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is hardly a mere collection of internal links; the routes are all in a sortable table with their endpoints and dates of establishment/closure. The highways in the table are mostly state highways, which almost always meet notability criteria, and therefore are appropriate content for a list. I'm not sure why you think most of the links are not to articles; most of the links are to individual articles about the numbered road included in the links, and the articles are named after the numbered routes rather than the named highways. The fact that the roads don't have names is hardly a reason for deleting the list; most state highways in other states don't, and we still have lists like this for those states (Alabama, Arizona, California, etc.). In fact, Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and the like don't have names either, and we certainly wouldn't delete those for lack of names. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida for examples of articles that don't contain a list of every single state road. So no we don't need a list of start and end points nor do we have an individual article for every single state road. That is unencyclopedic. This article does link to other articles that only have the linked article as a section. For example: Interstate 105 (Oregon) redirects to a section within Oregon Route 126 which has a description of sections of roads in it. I didn't know that ones for other states exist, (this article really should contain that info box the examples you provided had that link to the other state road articles) but State highways in Oregon has enough information, and is in the same format as most of the other articles. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, New York, Pennsylvania and Florida all have lists of every state road, they're just separate from the article describing the highway system as a whole, much as Oregon is. We have an individual article for most of the state roads; the missing ones mostly don't exist because no one wrote them yet, as consensus generally finds state roads to be notable. Interstate 105 is an exception because it's a segment of a state highway with the Interstate designation; it's common practice to merge these articles, but only Interstate Highways are redirected this way. The only other redirects are decommissioned highways which were signed as another highway later on; the current state routes almost all have independent articles, check the links to see for yourself. And every item in a list doesn't need to have an article to make the list encyclopedic; for example, List of reference routes in New York lists many highways which aren't notable enough for independent articles but are still part of a notable highway system. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit that these articles are poorly linked to each other since I wasn't able to find these articles from other similar ones. All this shows is that the problem was bigger that I thought, and just because other articles like this exist doesn't mean all of these shouldn't be deleted. These are almost the same as mindless, indiscriminate tables of statistics, so they are unencyclopedic. I have yet to here what possible thing anybody could learn from this article. People can see the start and endpoints, but then they would have to follow the link for each point to be able to tell where those are, and they would have to do that for every single road, going back and forth. It is impractical, and it is just best to have all the information about important roads in the same place, so it doesn't help with the organization of the main article. And about notability, the fact that the roads are not named or don't have some sort of significance outside the fact that they exist, only means the other articles like this should be deleted too. Answer me this, why do we need an article on every state road? What is the difference between this and having articles for every city road? --WikiDonn (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of lists are neither mindless nor indiscriminate. The article in questions lists the start and endpoints of the highways, and having to follow links to figure out where these are (and only if you don't know already) isn't that big of an obstacle. The list also lists the opening dates of each highway, which allows the reader to see a general overview of when Oregon established/disestablished the routes in its highway system. Though this list doesn't include this data yet, state highway lists also often include the length of the highways, which is definitely useful information as readers can see the longest and shortest highways in the state. In regard to notability, the roads do have significance outside of their existence; they were incorporated into a statewide highway system, a major highway network. See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability for a more detailed explanation of road notability in the United States. The fact that the roads have numbers rather than names is meaningless, because roads in the US generally aren't named; U.S. Route 20 is the longest road in the United States, but it has a number rather than a name. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the fact that U.S. Route 20 is the longest road in the United States makes it notable, in fact highly notable. See my comment below about how merely existing doesn't make something notable on Wikipedia. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is highly useful for understanding the relationships between roads. For example, I always thought that US 26 was a state road—even after commuting on it for decades—until seeing a list like this. While the guideline for navigation templates and categories is probably sufficient cause for the article to remain, its inherent value as an article providing high level highway organizational information, as well as specific geography and history, is more than sufficient for it to remain. —EncMstr (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is not suitable under WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be...excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." How is this article any different than a list of statistics? --WikiDonn (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly indiscriminate—it's a list of highways and data relevant to them. An example of indiscriminate data would be List of Jackie Gleason's favorite animals. If the list included additional data like length, number of lanes, surface type, connected cities, elevation data, would that make it less worthy of existing, or more so? —EncMstr (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have articles on English A-class roads, but not minor roads. These sorts of articles are commonly generated starting with a list, which shows what articles are needed. However, tabular articles with additional information tend to be better in the long run. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No valid criteria for deletion given. We don't need xxxx is a personal opinion, not relevant to WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:list or WP:CLN, all adequately met by this list. If I believed (and stated) that We don't need editors who believe such and such would that in turn become a valid rationale for deleting them as a user. Not only unlikely, but entirely against policies in WP. Please stick with valid deletion criteria when nominating articles for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:00, 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. Tone 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoru Kobayakawa[edit]

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

Google shows few or no hits in newspapers, the article is an orphan with almost no sources, and 2010062410032748, which is from the subject, states that all of the article is untrue and he'd very much like the profile to be deleted as the fact that it's full of unsourced statements is causing him problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST or general notability criteria. I see no reason not to comply with the subject's wish for deletion in this case. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I support deferring to the individual's wishes. The exceptions to that "rule" don't appear to be remotely applicable here.--SPhilbrick T 22:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons ably presented above. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - non-notable and negative. T3h 1337 b0y 21:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antispyware soft[edit]

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

Article was apparently created to "help people about by alerting them of this virus". The article seems to simply be instructions on how to diagnose and remove the virus, and is not encyclopaedic by any means. The fact that the contributor's purpose was to make others aware of the virus also suggests that it is not notable, and the references are simply from websites (largely user-contributed) which are set up to aide in the removal of many different malware programs, so there is no indication that this is any more notable than any other virus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 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, default to delete. NW (Talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Alcaraz[edit]

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

Subject of this WP:BLP requests deletion at OTRS:4893520. I am neutral. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the Australian Jets are the highest pro-level in Australia, which my quick research suggests they are (but I am readily open to correction on this) Vartanza (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Alcaraz has played professionally for Houston Dynamo in Major League Soccer, and as such passes WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. Should never have been nominated in the first place. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Jets line was completely unsourced, and given the history of unsourced edits probably completely bogus. I'm not clear on whether being on an MLS team for one year is enough to be notable, especially given the unclear status of the athelete rules and the fact that the MLS really isn't all that prestigous. Interpret this as a keep or delete based on whether being on an MLS team is notable, I guess. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for an MLS team makes you notabile. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If OTRS constitutes an office action then this should be speedy deleted per speedy deletion criteria G9. Not tagged, I am deferring to somebody else who can set that straight. Cannot access the OTRS link above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS tickets are people making requests to the office, not the office nessecarily agreeing to the requests. Yoshi348 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'm confused. Who exactly has nominated this for deletion, and why? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that basically Johnny Alcaraz nominated it. He requested deletion through e-mail, not being fluent in wp policies, and it was forwarded here (probably after a check to make sure the request wasn't completely insane on its face). Doesn't seem like non-admins can see the ticket and therefore the reasons why, but all the unsourced information being added to the article lately is probably the answer. Yoshi348 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently, the subject requested that this article be deleted via the OTRS system. Stifle, as an OTRS Volunteer, authenticated that the e-mail was genuine, and filed the AFD on behalf of the subject. Not sure what happened then, but for whatever reason the template was not placed at the article, and this AFD was not listed in the day's log. One comment was added on June 12. Then I noticed it on the list of BLP AFDs (at the imminently helpful User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO) and checked into it. Since it's an OTRS request, I didn't want to dismiss it out of hand, and so relisted it and properly tagged and logged the AFD. It's not an office action per se, but a neutral request forwarded by a volunteer on behalf of the subject. I add that I'm neutral on the deletion question as well, but that we might consider some form of protection if vandalism and unsourced shenanigans are problems on this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How interesting. Well, so long as we can get rid of all the unsourced crap, and keep an eye out for vandalism (which I do anyway), I don't see any problem with keeping it. He passes all the notability requirements for a professional soccer player. His biographical details are correct, as per his USCB and Houston Dynamo bios, and his career stats are correct too. Beyond that, I really can't see anything wrong with the page. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the BLP concern, and that the subject has only made minimal professional appearances, I think deletion here is probably okay for the time being. No prejudice on recreation should the subject return to professional football. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but monitor and retain only fully reliable sourced content. Concur with Chris Cunningham (not at work) above and come to similar conclusion. Technically the player passes ATHLETE with some cup appearances for Houston, but given subject request and marginal notability (as in, not the name on everybody's lips) no objection to deletion. Ideal scenario is retain the page with a close watch and rigorous attention to reliable sourcing to eliminate target vandalisms. --ClubOranje^T 10:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One game against the Charleston Battery is the very picture of stretching the notability guidelines- no evidence he actually ever played in an MLS match. The subject's request here is axillary- he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE- the U.S. Open Cup isn't a fully professional competition. Courcelles (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Prayer Christian Church[edit]

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

There are no sources for this article, and probably none exist [9]. It was considered for deletion in 2006 and no sources have been added since. Becritical (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources by changing the search criteria slightly to use quotation marks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc., their parent denomination, until and unless appropriate sourcing can be found. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... why would you merge material which cannot be sourced? Becritical (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only unverified, but by no means unique. There are dozens of churches in the U.S. called "House of Prayer" and most of them seem to have nothing to do with this "denomination". Don't merge to the New Testament Christian Churches denomination, because there doesn't seem to be any verified connection there either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Community Advisory Council (CAC) members[edit]

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

Content already exists at Missouri_Foundation_for_Health#Community_Advisory_Council_.28CAC.29, needless fork for a topic not notable enough for its own article. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain Delete. No need for a redirect for this advertisment spinoff of the currently advertisment article for the Missouri Foundation for Health, especially when the current count of former members is zero. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely search term. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 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 delete. Tone 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Scott[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I have opted not to nominate this autobiography for speedy deletion because I would like to know if the Queen's Venturer Award meets the requirements set out in WP:ANYBIO#1. I'm not familiar with the scouting community, and am unsure if a scouting award is 'significant' by Wikipedia standards. There seems to be no other reliable claim to notability here; the website for Fuse-It Media seems to be down, and there are no references here that are not affiliated with the subject in some way. Also, does a vector drawing count as an image of the subject? You know, unless he's Tron or Max Headroom or something. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll expand later if necessary but basically their does not seem to be an reliable, independent coverage of this individual and per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Guest9999 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - Only coverage in third party sources is trivial. Reso lute 01:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the Queen's Venturer Award is very significant within the Scouting community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon.scott.101 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Allan[edit]

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

Fictional character who has received no significant coverage in reliable sources - written entirely in an inuniverse style, and little encyclopaedic content to merge elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG - rejected PROD. Claritas § 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per Notability of Fiction's "Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria". This is a well developed article whose topic has appeared since September 1963 in the Spider-man fictional world. A compendium already sources this article and either Spider-man, Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and or Marvel Comics can supply the reliable sources needed for this article. The subject gets ghits as she was Peter Parker's love interest which means that the more reliable and verifiable URLs should be added as secondary sources or citations. While notability is not transferred, the creators (Lee and Ditko), Marvel Comics and Spiderman are notable. Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Criteria applies as Spider-man has appeared in book form which is a subcat of this AfD. Therefore, by knowing that Lee, Ditko, Marvel Comics and Spiderman 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.

WP:FICTION isn't a policy or guideline. You may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED. Claritas § 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominating this article for deletion is just like nominating Commissioner Gordon for deletion. And don't say other stuff exists. My point is that they are both very important to a popular superhero (in Gordon's case, Batman). Both characters have also been adapted numerous times including in shows and movies. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't feel like looking for sources, but trust me that's she's notable. She first appeared in Amazing Fantasy 15, and every bit of that comic has been dissected ad nauseum in secondary sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This character is noticed at length in this encyclopedia and so the character's notability is established. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an independent reliable source. There's enough coverage of her, per WP:PLOT, at List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Claritas § 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this work is independent of the original author while the publisher in this case is a excellent guarantee of reliability. Trying to wikilawyer away substantial sources of this kind is contrary to common sense which is an essential ingredient of any guideline. The source is fully compliant with our principle of verifiability and so there is no case for deletion. The list that you suggest as an alternative provides no sourced information about this notable topic and so does not meet the requirements of our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if Comic Book Company X produces a derivative work on Comic Y by Author A, published by Comic Book Company X, which is written by Author B, then Character Z in Comic Y is now notable ? It's not independent if it was a derivative work produced by the same company - as Comic Y in almost all cases wasn't written by a single author anyway. Per WP:PLOT, excessive plot summary is completely unnecessary.

The source is fine for our purposes being reliably authoritative and independent of the subject. The subject in this case is a fictional character who, by definition, does not exist and so there is no improper COI. Per WP:N, independence means avoiding stuff like "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases. The source is not promotional, it is explicitly encyclopaedic and so is excellent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default I can't say I agree with anything much suggested above, but since this is at least a marginally important bit-player in a major comics series (but a non-entity in terms of offshoots) then this character at the very least belongs in a character list like List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Characters like this do belong somewhere so deletion shouldn't really come into it. Said merging is best done with the aid of sources as part of maintaining the appropriate list, so until someone decides to open discussions to that affect it's best left IMO. Someone another 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Comic sources are annoying. All the good ones are in books that aren't google searchable, and the rest are about recent stuff. Single recent issues can pass NOTE, and famous characters with 40 year histories can require going to a big city library. In any case, here's a ref that would take us halfway to establishing notability for an article on Liz Allan in Ultimate Spider-Man #119. There's another that goes on about her hair color if you want, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine Fisher's source. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since there's no significant coverage demonstrated, WP:BKD is quite clear that the article should either be merged or deleted. Claritas § 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage has been demonstrated. Please see WP:IDHT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, where ? The encyclopaedia isn't an independent, source and Perigene just suggests that there are probably sources, and doesn't actually demonstrate one. Claritas § 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is perfectly fine and the relevant guideline has been cited in support of this assessment. All you've produced is your personal opinion - not a scrap of relevant, independent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN, you're the one who's supposed to look for evidence. The Marvel encyclopaedia is not an independent source- the category of independent sources "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and Marvel Comics are affiliated with their fictional characters - I made a reasonable effort per WP:BEFORE to find something third-party, but there's nothing to be found through Google. Claritas § 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An independent source has been provided. This source is necessarily about the subject but this is not affiliation in the sense meant. Your absurd interpretation would exclude any sources written by subject experts because they must necessarily have a working relation with the topic - mathematicians writing about mathematics &c. The point of independence is to exclude promotional material such as people writing about themselves. This is not what we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's to do with the fact that they are published by the same company, and likely written by the same people as the comics, and provide nothing but in-universe coverage of entities. Claritas § 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe coverage is not a basis for deletion; it's a style issue for cleanup. The fact that it is published by the same company does not in and of itself prevent it from being a secondary source, in that it summarizes and/or comments on the original primary sources of the comic book stories, nor does that in and of itself prevent it from being a reliable source. Your dismissive "Likely written by the same people as the comics" shows 1) that you haven't checked yourself, you're just assuming and 2) that you haven't really paid attention to the subject matter that you're dealing with—a character that has been published in serial fiction for decades in multiple titles, and adapted into other media. At any rate, the point of an AFD is not to persuade the nom. It's clear you persist in your original opinion, and insisting on that opinion as the final word in response to the crowd of contrary commenters does not magically generate a deletion consensus. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per keepers above, but it does need cleanup and out-of-universe development. For a 48-year old character associated with one of the most significant comics properties, creator commentary and analysis of her role in the story should be out there somewhere. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Tram number 765[edit]

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

The tram that the article about is not notable. Two book sources, one of which is self-published, does not account for notability. Furthermore, of the three web sources, 1 is self-published/OR and one is generally regarded as a fairly inaccurate source in the enthusiast world - the publisher is known for making errors. The tram in question has not 'done' anything inherently notable - it is just an average preserved tram and does not warrant an encyclopedia entry - especially when trams such as the last traditional tramcar built, the first to be preserved and the oldest surviving Blackpool car (Amongst others) do not have articles and were not allowed articles on notability grounds. The car is deemed "average" in the enthusiast movement - so why is it elevated and made more important by the presence of a Wikipedia article when others do not? I am therefore nominating it for an AFD discussion. Participants may also wish to read an exchange between myself and the creator on the article's talk page for more background. Also, please note that if the AFD results in a 'keep' the article should be moved to it's correct name of "Manchester Corporation Tramways 765". B G^7even 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to Manchester Corporation Tramways No.765 as suggested it needed a better title (Msrasnw (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Remove the No. - I defined it without because it's never included in the specialist areas. (Will get back to other comments left later today.) B G^7even 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think with No. looks nicer, and the car is referred to as No.765 generally and in the body of the article. And might cite that some experts sometines do use No. For this I cite the lead in the article you referred me to. It has an No.. That is:'Southampton Corporation Tramways No. 45 (On Simple). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, it's generally referenced as and called "765" as opposed to "No. 765". A useless bit of information backing this up: everyone who I spoke to at Crich Tramway Village (Even non-specialists/enthusiasts) used the tram numbers without the "No.". B G^7even

Give it a rest. The semantics of the title are not in question here. I do actually begin to question the possible personal motive behind this AfD request. --Keith 04:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved again to Manchester Corporation Tramways 765 (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but move a copy to Worldwide Trams Wiki. Not notable enough for Wikipedia under WP:GNG, but certainly worth keeping somewhere. A merge to the article on the tram system may also be appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the suggestion of moving the article from wikipedia to a commercial site with which the proposer of the deletion is involved might be viewed as being WP:Spam and or involve a conflict of interest and it is not, I think, appropriate. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Merge into Manchester Corporation Tramways, with transwiki if desired. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is appropriate to Manchester Metrolink and/or Manchester Corporation Tramways, userify the rest. P.S. I pinged User:Msrasnw on this one. East of Borschov 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why merging might not be a good idea: In the debate here and on the article's talk page merging this article with others has been suggested. Suggested merges include Manchester Corporation Tramways, Metrolink (?), Heaton Park Tramway (implicitly), Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum. In addition to its own merits, this diversity indicates to me to have links from most of these to this article is to be preferred to merging and what is more the addition of this whole article to anyone of these pages would not seem to me to be useful to improving those articles in terms of balance and structure. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I think an entire book about the topic that's had at least three editions over a 25 year period does show passing WP:GNG.[10][11] there's other significant coverage to solidify passing GNG. [12][13]--Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that it is a self-published book by the owners? As for link 3, we've covered countless other trams - so that means they're all notable as well? 765 is not a notable tram in the slightest! Furthermore, the book on the tram is more about the class of tramcar (Combination/California) than 765 itself - it's just named after 765 as the sole survivor (Does not make it notable; there's over a hundred of sole survivors. B G^7even 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is sourced and cited and Tram 765 is certainly well known to many in Manchester and all those interested in Manchester trams. (I had also planned to do another article on L53 Eades Reversible Horse Tram at some time) The issue seems to me more about the nature of wikipedia's coverage of specialist areas. I am also worried about the nature of this nomination. The nominator seems to me to think that other specialist wikis and specialist literature with which he is involved are the appropriate place for this article. I think he is claiming as part of his justification for this deletion request that other articles on trams have been turned down by wikipedia (and one is now on Simple Wiki ([14]) and thinks this one might go there too). The nominator has also written and plans to write articles on this non-notable tram in specialist literature. (One is one of those cited in this article) Is this a conflict of interest? Are we now supporting these other, sometimes commercial, wikis? Also does it support retention that this article has appeared on the frontpage of wikipedia in a DYK 15 Feb 2010? (I am the article's primary author) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment A K Kirby's book can be seen here: http://www.transportstore.com/book.cfm/10090/1759/Manchesters_Little_Tram_KIRBY_AK and the Publisher is Manchester Transport Museum Society. An image of the Tram (Restored Manchester tram car No. 765 on trailer at Hyde Road Bus Depot open day, 15th October, 1972. 1958/212 1972 - Negative Sheet Number 2/D6/0. [Greater Manchester County] in the 'More than Meets the Eye' collection - is documented on the UK National Archives (nationalarchives.gov.uk) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The sources provided seem adequate to establish the tenability of the topic. Whether it should be renamed, merged or otherwise amended by ordinary editing is not a matter for AFD. Please see our editing policy which enjoins us to preserve information, just as we preserve antiques like this tramcar.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources and coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Details are very specific for this vehicle, of which only 5 were built. Its notability is it still exists, a hundred years (ok 97) after construction, or 60 yrs after closure of the system. The comment of sources being incorrect is irrelevant unless the contributor is intimating it is total fiction. The idea of hiving off, or merging the article actually gives some credence towards keep it! --Keith 10:06, 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 delete. Tone 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Ford[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Article claims a number of credits, but I can find no verification; standard online modeling sources like Fashion Model Directory and Models.com have nothing on Ford. Her part in Drop the Beat was apparently not significant enough to be mentioned on the show's IMDb page. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no verification either. Even the single reference given doesn't appear to mention her - it's to a main site page, and a search on the site finds no hits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search for 'Vanessa Ford' in the only source given [15] yields no results. The only Vanessa Ford page on IMDB is apparently about another Vanessa Ford, who is in any case, a non-notable actress. A general google search yields nothing. LK (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also get nothing significant searching on Ms. Ford. Vartanza (talk) 05:09, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhigyan Prakash[edit]

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

I'm finding very limited sources, but looks like he might be on the cusp of notability? Hopefully those from India might do a better job, finding sources, otherwise I don't see how it meets WP:BIO given what I can find. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was watching this page, hoping someone would help it. I also don't see the notability, especially based on the claims given. — Timneu22 · talk 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find notability and failed. If someone somehow manages to uncover evidence of notability please leave me a note on my talk page! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 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. Tone 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CWG Magazine[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original PROD nomination rationale was, "No evidence of notability". SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage as per Joe Chill Codf1977 (talk) 20:34, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Norris (Interim Athletic Director)[edit]

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

No indication why this person is especially important, significant, or notable. Most athletic directors don't have their own pages, why should an interim AD have one? — Timneu22 · talk 13:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, fails WP:GNG. Reso lute 01:08, 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. Tone 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey N. Fisher[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) 12:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment It appears that this is a re-creation of an article previously deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mickey_Fisher. jmcw (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has a lot of problems, but the main one is that there are no independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no independent sources and I can't find any that show this subject has notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 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 AFD closed. No comments from other users and administrators, except the AFD nominator and author of the article. /Hey Mid (contributions) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Fix it Center[edit]

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

I am not sure this article qualifies for notability (WP:Notability). /Hey Mid (contributions) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 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 redirect to Lob wedge. JForget 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra lob wedge[edit]

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

As previously agreed on the talk page, there is entirely insufficient verifiable content for a stand alone article. What content there is has already been merged into Lob wedge. However the creator of this article has returned to insist that it stand alone or go through this process, so here it is. The fact is an ultra lob wedge is not a commonly used term and clubs that would fall into this category are most often referred to simply as lob wedges or x-degree wedges. _wjemather ^bigissue 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — As creator. It should not be redirected to lob wedge as they are two separate things. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the name. An ultra lob wedge is a lob wedge. They are not two separate things at all. Check out the major wedge manufacturers websites – none of them use the phrase ultra lob wedge, for example Titleist (Vokey). _wjemather ^bigissue 21:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasoning. Tewapack (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since an ultra lob wedge is a type of lob wedge and there are no length issues in the Lob wedge article, the appropriate thing was indeed to merge it into there. Reyk _YO! 23:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Lob wedge. Content has already been successfully merged. There is clearly not enough content for a full article on this subject, and there is plenty of room on Lob wedge for all of the information presented here. There is no reason for this article to remain, except for the original author's perceived ownership of the article. SnottyWong ^babble 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lob wedge ... it's a valid way to cover items in the same category... especially when each item does not have enough sources for their own pageArskwad (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lob wedge and Salt, per Snottywong's reasoning. PK T(alk) 20:43, 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. Blanked request - tidy up - was deleted Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent Group[edit]

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

It does not shows why the article is notable. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kidarathil family[edit]

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

The article does not show notability of the topic. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been tagged as CSD A7, which is warranted so this may be futile. Makes no assertion of notability and fails WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 10:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 19:13, 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. Tone 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Chashnik[edit]

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

Article does not show notability and importance of the subject. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable exponent of the Russian avant-garde in the early 20th century, a book was published about him [16]. See Google Books search result for "Илья Чашник" художник ("Ilya Chashnik" artist) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Some of his works have a stroke of something... But he died too early to make a statement of his own (unlike, for example, Lazar Hiedekel or El Lissitsky). I really doubt that there will be sufficient sources to represent him as an independent artist, rather than just another pupil of the Vitebsk school. East of Borschov 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 76 English Gbook mentions on "Ilya Chashnik" [17], 74 Gbook English mentions for "Ilia Chashnik". [18]. This is pretty good for a guy who died in 1929. His works are sold by Sothebys. [19]. More detail in an EN publication is here, unfortunately behind a paywall, but you can see a snippet containing the words 'For too long, the creative genius of Chashnik has eluded scholarship. This exhibition begins to explain his major contributions to the larger field of Russian modernism." [20] From ArtDaily in 2010: 'Among the masterworks selected by Hadid [that is, Zaha Hadid] for the show are pieces by Ilya Chashnik, El Lissitzky, Kasimir Malevich, Alexander Rodchenko and Nikolai Suetin.' [21]. Novickas (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for the reasons above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagliost (talk • contribs) 08:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable painter Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:55, 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. With 3 people for keeping the article as Murder of Leanne Tiernan, and 6 for deletion, this is (barely) short of a consensus for deletion, especially given that the last "delete" opinion cites WP:BLP1E, which does not apply to dead people. Sandstein 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Tiernan[edit]

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

This is a recreation of the article Murder of Leanne Tiernan, this article fails WP:BIO and also WP:NOT unfortunately people get murdered all the time and just because the victim was a minor doesn't make it any more notable. Here is link to previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Leanne Tiernan Mo ainm~Talk 08:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the Nom the first time this was up for AfD was spot on "Muderered schoolkid. Hit the newspapers at the time. No evidence of notability beyond that. Not encyclopedic", that is not to say that it is a tragic case but just one of probably hundreds that took place worldwide on 26 November 2000. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the last AFD got this right and the article should be deleted again. She is not notable and neither is her murder. There is also a copyright problem with the text of the article. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Kidnap and Murder section are almost word for word from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2116337.stm which is used as the source. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nice as this article is it is not a biography it would potentially work as a Murder of article or a broader Article on the murderer but this one is not notable a biography please see Murder of Amanda Dowler and Peter Sutcliffe for how it shold be done.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan (first choice) or Keep. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS is the only real reason I can see to delete, but the depth of coverage (the case study in particular) would seem enough to overcome that. I'll note that no one above has given a reason to delete other than "not notable" and as the article clearly meets WP:N (or at least a "Murder of" article does) those !votes aren't exactly policy/guideline based... Hobit (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Under the current title it is not notable as she herself was not a notable person outside of the murder case. The current article title and the subsequent content is what is being discussed. Also the above are not votes as each one give differing reasons for deletion. The root of the reasoning may though be the same policy but that is irrelevant. Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan or better still incorporate in to the article regarding the murderer. If it is incorporated in to the articvle on the murderer all the sentimetality must be removed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This kind of murder gets a lot of publicity at the time, and again if the culprit might be released prematruely, but tends to be forgotten (except by the bereaved). If kept, Rename to "Murder of ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. The case received extensive coverage over a long period - it was a high profile investigation and trial. Being cited as forensics case study by the UK Forensics service, another forensics website, and a scholarly article[22] is a sign that the coverage was not just routine. It also got covered by Jane's[23] and Crimewatch.[24] "Tends to be forgotten" is no reason for deletion as notability is not temporary, and it wasn't forgotten in Yorkshire: [25][26] I don't understand how editors believe that deleting such high profile criminal cases improves Wikipedia, as this is not trivia or tabloid fluff. Fences&Windows 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there was a TV documentary called "Killer in the Woods" made about the case:[27] People do get murdered all the time but that's a terrible argument for deletion: we should have an article on each and every notable case, and this is a notable case. Fences&Windows 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if renamed otherwise per F & W. This is not a biography, and probably never can be because the poor victim is not notable. The killer has a far greater claim to notability, and this probably could be turned into an article about him without much difficulty. I have no problem with a "Murder of" type article, although my experience is that they tend to develop too much along the lines of a memorial. Still, either one would be an acceptable way to refocus this content without deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kesha songs[edit]

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

Article contains no references, is poorly written and she already has a Discography page, page is non-sense. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of this is covered on Kesha Discography Btilm 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Kesha discography already exists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessarily nonsense, but definitely redundant when Kesha discography already exists. Also, the unverified list of unreleased songs is just fan trivia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speddy Delete its just an unnessasary other page. STAT -Verse 03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undeniable delete, this should have been deleted using speedy nom because it recreates material already existant. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 28 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. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Kesha discography. The redundancy issue is valid and as long as information is not lost via deletion then merging is not necessary. The argument that this list (redundant or not) is OR because the article title has never been published is without merit, and reflects an extremely minority position that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of WP:OR in relationship to article titles.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the discography article; totally redundant (and possibly a CSD#A10). —fetch ·comms 21:59, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIV and AIDS misconceptions[edit]

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

The article is more of a collection of information, presented as a fact sheet. All this information is covered elsewhere, and makes this "factsheet" redundant. It would require a significant rewrite to be presented as a neutral encyclopedic article and I don't think such a rewrite is possible. Thank you for your consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly is the problem, that some interested editors cannot fix, which makes you feel this article needs to be deleted?--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consequences, prevalence, and persistance of misconceptions/falsehoods about HIV infection and AIDS is a notable topic in its own right. A simple Google search turns up several reliable sources that deal with the topic directly. Five quick examples (from the first 40 of 153,000 results of a Google search for misconceptions about hiv aids):

"The Top 10 Myths and Misconceptions About HIV and AIDS", WebMD

"HIV/AIDS Misconceptions Among Latinos: Findings From a Population-Based Survey of California Adults" Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 2, 245-259 (2008) doi:10.1177/1090198106288795

"Common misconceptions about HIV increase discrimination" Yemen Times

"Association of misconceptions about HIV transmission and discriminatory attitudes in rural China" AIDS Care, Volume 19, Issue 10 November 2007 , pages 1283 - 1287 doi:10.1080/09540120701402814

"Ghana: Misconceptions About HIV/Aids Widespread" AllAfrica.com (subscriber wall)

There are ample scientific and popular media publications that deal with these misconceptions (many of them are in the 74 different currently-cited sources), therefore I think a Wikipedia article on this topic is justified. Perhaps some serious editorial trimming is justified as well--there's undoubtedly some WP:SYNTH violations in this article given its breadth and size--but I don't see a good case for wholesale deletion. — Scientizzle 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears that this has never been written in the "encyclopedic style", which I credit more to one person setting the standard and everyone afterward being reluctant to straighten it out; however, fixing bad writing is not the same as insensitivity to AIDS sufferers. My bold prediction is that people will fall over themselves in the race to vote "keep", and recite nuggets of wisdom like "AfD is not for cleanup" or "this can be fixed" -- and the article will remain unchanged. Not a delete, because it is well-sourced and it addresses a good topic. But let's face it, it's a good article, but it's not a Wikipedia article. Mandsford 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... I agree, it is a good article. But as above, I don't think a rewrite is possible, it would require a complete rewrite. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep afd is not for clean up, this can be fixed. do i hear an echo? seriously, the specific subject is highly notable, and thus should stay. however, we have to remain npov, and thus must be careful to either focus here on absolutely universally scientifically agreed upon misconceptions, or include more fringe theories and consider a slight tweak of the title, perhaps like "HIV/AIDS professionals responses to misconceptions". oh i dont know, cant find the words.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I think that a rewrite is possible, provided that there's a consensus for that. As a rule, no individual person wants to act on their own to change someone's work beyond recognition, because it's perceived as an aggressive act, and in many cases, the changes are quickly reverted. Bringing it to the deletion forum is more likely to get a consensus to support the way improvements go. People can say that's what the article's talk page is for, but only those persons who happen to stumble on to the article would even know to look at its talk page-- and seriously, who actually looks at an article's talk page? I think that concept dates from Wikipedia's hippie days where people were expected to sit around a bonfire just singin' and clappin' -- definitely a case where we might as well be walking on the sun. Mandsford 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject, worthy of inclusion. (Yes, it does need clean-up.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs rewrite, but worthy of inclusion. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all in agreement that we think it's a good topic, and that we're all in agreement that none of us, myself included, actually want to try rewriting this in an encyclopedic form. I'm betting that it will still look like this when it comes up for review again. Mandsford 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable subject, interesting and well sourced.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 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. Tone 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowlands Invitational[edit]

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

No notability shown - requires references to illustrate such notability. DeathHamster (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds kinda madeup. 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eat the Whistle[edit]

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

Could not find reliable, third-party sources for this game. No significant coverage. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything there besides generic descriptions/download locations and forum locations about this. None of them are able to establish notability, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 23:29, 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. Based on the links discussed here. And yes, the quote is outstanding. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Sipprelle[edit]

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

Subject is mainly known as a political candidate, but fails WP:POLITICIAN because he has yet to win office, and has not otherwise met notability guidelines. Since this article was created shortly after Sipprelle's announcement of candidacy, and did not exist during his business career, I suspect that this article is meant to tacitly support his candidacy, though blatant promotion is not present. Request deletion without prejudice, in case he does win this election, in which case he would clearly meet notability guidelines for politicians. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's borderline, but he did win the Republican primary election against David Corsi - Corsi has never even won a primary, but it's something. Running for a seat in the U.S. Congress with the support of a major party is a pretty big deal. Dcoetzee 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been general precedent on House of Representatives races that a candidate is not notable just for running. He or she must have achieved notability through other means, unless the race itself garners significant statewide or national attention. I'll agree this call is borderline, and he may get enough coverage in the run-up to the general election to merit an article. But not yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN - no problem with a recreate if he wins election. Codf1977 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking for news sources by getting rid of the middle initial, I found this and this to suggest that he has notability from his business activities, apart from the current run for office. This information isn't in the article, probably because it isn't relevant to his campaign which seems to be the reason for the page's creation, but it can certainly be added by someone who can see the full articles. Businesses mentioned matched the ones in the article's biography, so I'm pretty sure this is the same Scott. Yoshi348 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Yoshi348. He was probably at least scraping notability for his investments career, e.g. [28][29][30]; add in a run for the House of Representatives and he sails home. And it's not really relevant to his notability, but this raised a smile: "In 1995 Scott Sipprelle, then a young banker at Morgan Stanley, having urged his client, Netscape's chief executive Jim Barksdale, to show some restraint in pricing the internet browser company's shares, acknowledged that US investors were ripe for the taking: "Jim - you're at the senior prom. Your date is drunk. Whether you're a gentleman is up to you."[31] Fences&Windows 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not totally convinced re notability, but that quote is priceless. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUR America Initiative[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GROUP, recently formed advocacy group, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. May become notable in time, but for now appears to fail WP:GNG. Empty Buffer (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable/no reliable sources. Becritical (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afsha Musani[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. don't see how this role is notable, a little coverage but nothing in depth [32]. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either ENT or GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 17:59, 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. Tone 22:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shige Hirooka[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N, which requires multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Currently the only source is her name on a list of the world's oldest people, and a Google search turned up nothing other than more lists. There may be material available in Japanese, but notability is not based on theoretical sources. I will glady withdraw the nomination if sufficient sources are found, in any language. All of the information here could be (and is) presented on one of the many supercentenarian lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her only remarkable trait as far as I can determine is her age; she is already listed at List of Japanese supercentenarians and List of living supercentenarians. Dcoetzee 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^babble 19:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E is a good rule... would also support redirecting to List of Japanese supercentarians... not enough here for an article unless we resort to original research which is a whole other problem for biographies... Arskwad (talk) 14:58, 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. Tone 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrel Jackson Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN actor. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a google search doesn't seem to reveal anything other than a few trivial mentions in sources with suspect reliability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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. JForget 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Soo Hoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ENT. at best he has 2 appearances in one show. the vast majority of his acting career is one off appearances. most of the gnews coverage refers to his photo at a ceremony. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably weakly, as he was nominated for Supporting young actor award at the Young Artist Awards for his role as "Young Storm Shadow" in "GI Joe-Rise of Cobra.". I guess that's notable. — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting both WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO with an award win in 2009 for his role in Tropic Thunder, and an award nomination in 2010 for his role in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Article needs some copyedit and additional sourcing to be properly encyclopdic... but surmountable issues are not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Brandon Soo Hoo is an award winning child actor with 2 major roles in 2 block buster movies. Tropic Thunder where he earned major screen credit for, at the end of the film , "Introducing Brandon Soo Hoo", and the other G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, he was a co-star, who was invited to the premiere and after parties. He won Young Artist Award for best performance in feature film for the first film and nominated for Young Artist Award for best performance in feature film for the 2nd film he made. I think that is notable. He has also guest starred in many TV series including 3 series in 2010 so far. NBC'S Community, Comedy Central's Workaholics and Nickelodeon's new pilot "Everyday Kid". This kid is going to make it big. He was also listed under Wikipedia's American Child Actor, American Martial Artist, American Tae Kwon Do Practitioner, American Wing Chun Practitioner, American people of chines descent and Young Artist Award winners. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia. They nominated him for deletion before and the concensus was Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc888 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 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) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a few more comments would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets anybio with multiple award noms, and said awards indicate both roles were significant (which would make him meet ENT). I do not really see what has changed since the first AfD, which, despite garnering few comments, also ~~resulted in an unanimous~~had consensus to keep. decltype (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Jinn Walmaskoon (Documentary)[edit]

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

Complete lack of sources, and only links to YouTube and Facebook. Nothing here indicates why it is notable, and the director of the film appears to be the editor of the page. Promo. — Timneu22 · talk 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the film was made in Dubai, sources in English may be difficult to find. I would suggest searching for Arabic language sources, but as I do not speak Arabic, I cannot help in this regard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable documentary. Lustralaustral (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fact that the word "funk-punk" has been used in one or two sources is not sufficient evidence to create an encyclopedic article on it. It is a close call but appears to boil down to one source. There does not appear to be a good policy based argument to keep. This article fails notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punk funk[edit]

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

Made up sub genre, according to this article this genre somehow started 2 years before punk rock started. Ridernyc (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesnt even have any references STAT- Verse 02:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy. Wiki libs (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are multiple reliable sources that talk about this style. See these books: 101 albums that changed popular music, Funk Guitar and Bass: Know the Players, Play the Music, etc. RG (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That second reference doesn't appear to contain the word "punk"~~. see below Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the second reference is "Funk Guitar and Bass", that appears to contain the word "punk" ten times and "punk-funk" at least once. Mandsford 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was being exceptionally dumb there - I blindly searched the web page without realising it was referring to a book that covers the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. But these sources should be worked into the article, not just here. Tezero (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- there seems to be enough sources out there to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alor Incident[edit]

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

No multiple, reliable, independent sources found to establish notability of extraordinary claims, per WP:REDFLAG. Rather than the Indonesian sources cited, the article appears to have been entirely sourced to a UFO/conspiracy web site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know the sourcing on the image. The copyright tag claims it's an original work of the author of the article. That's fine, but where is his source for what the mysterious strangers should look like? Is he just working from the description in the article? That's not really helpful at all. APL (talk) 16:47, 22 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, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:04, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edilma[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub on this given name, no evidence of notability. Prod declined. The name seems to exist, but does not seem common or notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article (perhaps could be transwikied to Wiktionary, since it does include an etymology). Rigadoun (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culbann C.P.C[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on last AfD: Hosting a notable event does not show automatic notability per WP:N. In Schmidt's searches, I didn't see any significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established since last AfD. The one source reads like an advertisement, which does not establish notability. And, assuming the 2011 event will be any different is WP:CRYSTAL. Also, I could not find any additional coverage. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG Akerans (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inkfruit[edit]

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

Non-notable, orphaned and apparently never reviewed Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as can be seen from the references section, and thus passes WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about significant coverage. Really only one of the references (the Economic Times review) is more than a short mention of the company. Is that enough to establish notability? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my mind a bit here. I don't think the references in the article constitute significant coverage to establish notability, but Inkfruit's pressroom has links to quite a few other sources, newspaper/periodical articles from what I can tell, that should be enough to establish notability. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing Inkfruit's pressroom, there were a few advertisement type materials, but managed to find at least 5 (stopped looking at that point) sources that meet WP:GNG. Akerans (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Sigma[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 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) 23:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched not only this company but it's parent company as well and I could not find any notable/reliable sources. Anything I could find on this company seems to be advertisement. The author points to an advertisement video and the company's own website as reliable sources. The poor sourcing aside, I can't see anything notable or unique about this company that would warrent an article either to suggest there could be a source out there. I agree with nom, fails WP:CORP.--v/r - T P 00:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited search results for 3Sigma, and appears, at least, 3 different companies are using the same name. As mentioned above, results read like advertisements, and not all results are for this specific company. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP. Akerans (talk) 14:21, 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.