Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 June 4 June >

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 redirect to John Rook#Hit Parade Hall of Fame. Redirecting on the advice of the nominator and the only !voter. Consider this closed as nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Parade Hall of Fame[edit]

Hit Parade Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on non-notable "hall of fame" created by banned user. The only Google news hit is for a press release from the company behind this from March 2010, wherein it states that this is just an idea in "start up phase." Delete until such time as this hall of fame achieves real world notability, if ever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John Rook#Hit Parade Hall of Fame. The most significant coverage I can find is this magazine article. However, this magazine is a freebie entertainment magazine given away at Canadian movie theatres, and the editorial selection, and fact checking for this magazine is probably a bit lax. Aside from this, it's mostly bio mentions in awards sections such as this example. This press release would indicate that this hall of fame isn't ready for prime time yet. And this is reinforced by the fact that their web page is no longer active and just displays adverts for GoDaddy. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maricar Reyes (actress)[edit]

Maricar Reyes (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Maricar Reyes is protected from creation due to frequent recreations and vandalisms. User:Madapaka created the Maricar Reyes (actress) instead. Try moving the page to Maricar Reyes, you'll see that the destination article is protected. Mageclansoftheeast (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maricar Reyes article was locked. There's no need for a Maricar Reyes (actress) article, she has no namesake. Delete this article and unlock the original article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.245.38 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note by closing admin - article moved - now is this person notable? AfD relisted. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm assuming previous deletions and the resulting salting of the article were due to it being too soon. Notability is established with multiple reliable sources. Apparently there was some video sex scandal that she was involved in, but that hasn't stopped her from landing acting roles. See also [1], [2], [3], and [4] although that may be a bit self-serving as she is starring on shows from this same media company. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Clearly fails WP:ENT. The creator of the article is trying to find a loophole to get around the previous salting of Maricar Reyes, so that their favorite actress can get an article on WP. SnottyWong talk 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - but she clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources. Is there some issue with those sources? -- Whpq (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Maricar Reyes and keep -- Whpq found some references that should be used in the article. –Howard the Duck 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Appraisal[edit]

American Appraisal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A consulting company but no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — subject is quite notable. Company history is counting over 100 yrs and i was able to find significant coverage of the company (not the term) on Google Books, News and even Scholar. Article is in need of bigger edits to fulfill the WP requirements but the subject is notable enough to keep it on WP. — Zhernovoi (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete The bar for private companies should be set differently than it is for biographies or studies of political or historical topics. This one fails the sniff test, no significant information imparted and a little bit of hornblowing in a poorly-written stub. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on the Google news link at the top of the AFD and you get 3,090 results. Reading through some, its the company in question mentioned there. The oldest news search result is over a hundred years ago! When you been making news for more than a century, you are notable. Dream Focus 06:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the author of the article, I am obviously biased. However, do consider that that company employs more than 1,000 people in 60 locations worldwide. I am not aware of specific inclusion criteria for the English Wikipedia, but e.g. in the German Wikipedia, this is a clear keeper (the limits are at least 1,000 employees or 20 locations worldwide, only one of which must be met). Consistently, the German article has been around for awhile. -- Sigi fikanz (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking at the news coverage, it has been continuously covered over a significant period of time by various Milwaukee papers. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently large to be a major factor in its industry,as shown by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since no-one has demonstrated evidence that there are separate sources thatd escribe the subject separately from the band and notability is not inherited, the best policy based arguments are the delete one. Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Shisko[edit]

Yulia Shisko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not nearly enough significant coverage seen. —fetch·comms 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability due to wide inter-European/ international coverage in the 2010 Eurovision song contests. Also she was a finalist on a TV show. IJA (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is an obvious keeper. Eurovision notability, plus other musical projects.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • fair enough but probably premature... many others could be bracketed as having similar claims to fame in the past but would generally now be assessed as not worthy of a Wikipedia article--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well that isn just pure speculation and not anything we can take a stand in right now... so keep the article for future evaluation. Especially in the light that the group could win Eurovision or get notable fame after eurovision.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont understand you reasons.. if being in Eurovision is notable and being a member of 3+2 is notable...then how can Yulia Shisko as a person Not be notable?. By the way one of the other members has already been Not deleted so deleting this one on grounds of non-notability doesnt work.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no valid sources for Yulia Shisko alone. Being a member of 3+2 doesn't justify a seperate article. Dewritech (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does if you implying that being a member of 3+2 and being part of Eurovision is notable. As Yulia is part of both these two notable subjects.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We cant neither say as of this moment that Yulia wont get alot of attention after the Eurovision final tomorrow. Perhaps get a solo career et.c Or that 3+2 becomes a huge popular group or even wins the Eurovision. She will get alot more internet matches soon after eurovision. And to say that a person who has singed infront of an audience that could be up to 500 million people isnt notable.. is just wrong. To delete this article is not right. I rest my case.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability. eurovision. own career. etc.etc--195.84.41.1 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this Afd really need a relisting...? Its an obvious Non consensus discussion. There will never be a definite delte or keep decision i think. I still stand by my Keep opinion.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, without taking a view on the subject, I would be reluctant to see us close as non-consensus on the basis of such a limited exchange of views, especially for a BLP. If more people look at it, they may be able to clarify whether it meets our customary standards in the area. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 4 saying keep and "only" one saying delete as of a Afd discussion that has been going on since May 27. But I cans ee your point of view to.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still don't see any major sign of notability from Eurovision that justifies a separate article from 3+2--Google shows 1000 hits, only, while 3+2 has over a million (Google skips the "+", so I added "Belarus" in that search). —fetch·comms 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it would just look strange that one article is notable in accordance with users and then anothe rmembe rof the same band is not. But i dont know.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just another comment, but on the official page of 3+2 the name is romanised as "Yuliya Shyshko". So if you adjust for different variations to romanise Юлия Шишко and add combinations of this there are more than "only" 1k Google entries. And this might be the Russian spelling variant, not Belarusian, but I don't know what the differences between those two alphabets are, nor the official way to romanise them. The same is also the case with the names for the other members in the group. Laniala (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? Seems a bit vage to me?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How less vague can I be, she is not at all notable in any way. She is a wana be singer in a wanabe band of no note that was belrauses choice in the euro song comp, the band already has an article, there is nothing in citations about her and most of the content in the article now is uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be your personal opiniopn about her and the band than the actual truth. the truth is that Yulia along with 3+2 has represented Belarus at one of the worlds biggest music competition. Its like saying that Usain Bolt should be redirected into the Jamaica article or similar..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it's better to redirect to 3+2 (band)? I concur that there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its like saying that Usain Bolt or sutch should be redircted into the Jamaica article, its just the same thing Yulia and 3+2 has represented a whole nation at a huge music competition and has established notability trough that and other musical projects.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally incomparable to Usain Bolt who is so notable it is untrue, a three times world record winner. This person is not wikipedia notable in any way, there is no coverage about her at all. As Tim comments...redirect to the band. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Yulia made it all the way to the final beating out about 20 other contestants for a place in the final. In a televised event which probably was watched by mnay more viewers than usian bolt when he took world records. With your reasoning Usain Bolt should definitly be redirected to the 2008 Summer Olympics or Jamaica article. You see it doeasnt make sense. But lets not argu about that. lets see how this afd end ups. Just dont see a reason to delete or merge an article with a notable person which also has a image and has appeared in one of the most viewed televised events in the world.. or are you an american? in that case you really shouldnt take part in this discussion as you probably dont understand how huge the Eurovision is in Europe.. but that is only in case you are an not-european.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. I think we're done here. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Allen[edit]

Laura Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Pinner458 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Harris so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks

I think this is a joke, but if not then you are mistaken. Similar appearance and the same first name don't make them the same person. You can confirm that with their existing Wikipedia entries and completely different filmographies and biographies. Or verify at IMDB for Laura Harris and Laura Allen (SEC (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to WP:MERGE the articles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Groundless AfD, notable subject (non-admin closure) mono 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Harris[edit]

Laura Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Pinner458 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Allen so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks

I think this is a joke, but if not then you are mistaken. Similar appearance and the same first name don't make them the same person. You can confirm that with their existing Wikipedia entries and completely different filmographies and biographies. Or verify at IMDB for Laura Harris and Laura Allen (SEC (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to WP:MERGE the articles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Allen and Laura Harris are NOT the same person. The info at imdb.com is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2004 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Puppy (album). Courcelles (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas Demos (album)[edit]

Xmas Demos (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Puppy (album). This isn't a demo, it's a promotional release from Virgin Records. Just because something has 'demo' in it's title, that doesn't make it a demo. Demos are not assumed non-notable either, the guideline simply states that most of them are. This should be redirected because it simply doesn't merit an article. I've added a mention in the Puppy article, which I think suffices.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Puppy. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Warlord (Godkiller album)[edit]

The Warlord (Godkiller album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants the text to prepare a merge, just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America (Marvel animated universe)[edit]

Captain America (Marvel animated universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons out lined with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (DC animated universe), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe). This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:

Things that are worth noting here:

  • The tone of this article implies that Captain America was an actual show with a set cast of characters.
  • The material incorperated within the "Character" section for Captain America amounts to "Actor and plot, very light on the actor." There is nothing provided that real world context for how the character was adapted. There is also nothing that provides for a characterization sketch, this may not be surprizing though since the character featured in 8 episodes across 3 different shows in the "main continuity", with 2 of those appearance being flashbacks.
  • The material in the "Other characters" is little better across the borad. And in the case of 5 of the characters, their appearance in the shows is not relavent to Captain America.
    • Sharon Carter - "A red-haired S.H.I.E.L.D. agent resembling..." is "Fans assume this is Sharon Carter." The character's appeare in the one show did not rely on Cap being there.
    • Nick Fury - Also appeared as his own character, not an apendage of Cap.
    • Rick Jones - Appeared as Hulk's "sidekick" in 2 of the 3 shows Cap never appeared in.
    • U.S. Agent - Appeared in a show not considered part of the MAU.

This, as with the listed AfD examples, is part of a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we've done this dance so many times before, as J Greb outlines above and is further discussed by the Comics Project here. (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - as reasons above. Plus, isn't it time this kind of stuff really stopped taking up time so people are able to improve content, not just firefight. Archiveangel (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per J Greb's reasoning. There isn't anything here concerning Captain America that could not be covered in Cap's main article, especially since he wasn't exactly a main character in the MAU. The stuff about other characters isn't directly related to Cap, either. Wikikaye 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup.. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ideals of female beauty[edit]

Chinese ideals of female beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unencyclopedic article relying largely on original research. Gobonobo T C 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to make the subject notable. Tim Song (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up[edit]

50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SummerPhD's prod for this television special was removed and I can't find significant coverage also. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As summarized above, I have been unable to find reliable sources for this article and there are none present. IMDb is not a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News Archive shows plenty of RS coverage. Programs that aired on major television networks are presumed notable per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, and the coverage certainly seems to bear that out. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have added multiple RS to the article, such that it clearly meets V now. Significant coverage appears to be behind the various paywalls, but clearly appears in the Google News Archive search. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. Your first source [5] is a bare mention, "... and a host of 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up." Next, we have a TV listing. Yep, it exists, as does "Scheewe Art Workshop" (which might be notable, but not based on this). The last two, [6] and [7] are user edited. Anyone can add anything -- not reliable sources. Don't tell us there might be substantial coverage in reliable sources somewhere, show us. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, television shows are presumed notable. This is more of an episode than a show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've got a better idea--while I find more sources, can the two of you be so kind as to take the undisputably RS that I have found, and put them into {{cite web}} format? That's assuming you're interested in improving the encyclopedia rather than just grousing about when other people try and improve it, of course. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, SummerPhD, what an incredible amount of effort you expended to add {{fv}} tags when you could easily have fixed them yourself. Gotta say, no matter how childishly you respond in the AfD, you simply can't come up with an absence of sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the efforts made to find and add some sources, although I think it's a tough sell to establish that the show itself is notable. There are some others that indicate that this was promoted when it was a Saturday night rerun [8] and there are indications that reporters preparing to interview a former kid star will refer to the countdown in the questioning [9]. However, I think that the original intent of the article was simply to have an excuse to list all 50 names and their rankings, and one would then click on the blue links to see what they did after they grew up and how they're doing now (#8 died last week). Remove that and what's left in the article? The countdown probably won't be lost to history-- things like that do survive on the internet, usually as part of message boards (for example [10]). Mandsford 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment four additional offline reliable sources, three non-trivial, retrieved via Lexis-Nexis, have been added to the article. Full citations are included if anyone would like to find them and argue that they don't represent substantial independent coverage, but failing that, notability has been clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news, Google books, and surprisingly even Google scholar search shows results. Looking through the news, it seems obvious a show is notable if its mentioned that many times. The article quotes many news sources which commented on the show. Dream Focus 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Jclemens on finding good sources to demonstrate notability. Many TV series on wikipedia have separate articles for every episode; in contrast, this was a special feature which received individual coverage.--Milowent (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made and sources found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for sources found by Jclemens. Kudos to Jclemens for the excellent work! --Cyclopiatalk 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nice improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep impressive improvements. A TV special can be just like any film or event. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have truncated the list to the top 10. The list is copyrightable, and we cannot reproduce it in its entirety without permission. The top 10 should be permissible ala fair use, as with other subjective lists like The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding that and fixing it in an appropriate manner. I hadn't even thought about it. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • NP. I know all too well what it is to focus on one issue and overlook another.:D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The "countdown" style didn't seem encyclopedic. I've reversed the order, from 1 to 10. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the ARS have certainly piled on the Keep !votes, none of the sources added to this article prove anything other than the fact that this show actually existed. It's obvious that none of the ARS members actually examined any of the references that were added to the article, and just added their blind praise about how great the improvements to the article are. If we actually look at all of the references, we find the following:
    • Reference 1: Broken link.
    • Reference 2: A very short promotional blog, mainly about Rudy Huxtable. Not a reliable source.
    • Reference 3: An article about Candace Cameron. Mentions the show in passing once.
    • Reference 4: No link provided.
    • Reference 5: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
    • Reference 6: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
    • Reference 7: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
    • Reference 8: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
    • Reference 9: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.
    • Reference 10: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.
So again, we know that the show existed. Existence does not imply notability. There are still no reliable sources which establish the notability of this one-time 2-hour TV show from 5 years ago. (For reference, I was working off of this revision of the article.) SnottyWong talk 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out that the Google Books link in #1 had become broken in an intermediate update. I was able (as were you of course, but you didn't) to go back to where it was originally added, find the correct link, and update the footnote accordingly. As far as your criticisms of 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, please see WP:PAYWALL. Just because you don't feel like expending the effort and/or money to get the articles in electronic or print format, that isn't particularly anyone's problem but yourself. Note especially that specific commentary and criticism about the special are attributed, with direct quotation, to these offline sources (numbers 4, 9, and 10 in the version you permalinked). In other words, your !vote does not align with Wikipedia's sourcing policy and will most likely be given appropriately lesser weight by the closing administrator. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and you assert without explanation that EW Popwatch, a Blog run by a major media outlet, is not a reliable source. Would you care to elaborate? Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to elaborate on your second question, just see WP:NEWSBLOG for more information. In any case, are you really trying to say that an informal 200-word blog post on "EW Popwatch" is your single source that establishes notability? SnottyWong talk 05:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one ever said it was sufficient; it is simply one of several references. I asked why you asserted it wasn't reliable. WP:NEWSBLOG supports the use of editorially controlled blogs as reliable sources, so I'm still not sure what your problem is with the ref. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your first response, I never said that the sources were invalid because I need to pay to see them. I was just disclosing that I was unable to verify the sources on my own. However, the titles of the sources imply the level on content that they likely provide. Perhaps, since you presumably have access to the sources, you can enlighten us as to how these sources establish the notability (as opposed to the mere existence) of the TV show. Here are the titles of the sources in question: (Note that Jclemens has interspersed his comments within Snottywong's post below)
  • Arpe Pretty, Malene (2006-01-07). "Child Stars". The Toronto Star: p. K02. - Is the TV show the main subject of the article, or is it merely mentioned somewhere?
Per the article's text "In 2006, the Toronto Star published their own list in response to the special, referring to it as "Seven Cutest Child Stars: Not Grown Up Yet, But When They are This is What Will Happen"". So in case that wasn't clear, yes, the entire article was a reaction to the special. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodings, Scott. "Thursday - Pay TV". The Age: p. 46. - The title of this article from an Australian newspaper implies that it is simply a listing of what TV shows were playing on Thursday. Furthermore, the footnote doesn't even give us the date of the newspaper edition, so this one is impossible to verify even if I had access to Australian newspapers.
Thanks for catching that. The date is now included. As it stands in the article, the article is just being used to support the assertion that the show is periodically rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Digital Highlights - Saturday January 21". The Daily Telegraph: p. 25. 2006-01-18. - This also appears to be a TV guide type listing.
As the above entry, all it's being used to support is the rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freer, Sloan (2007-09-09). "Pick of the Day". The Observer: p. 24. - Apparently some editor's favorite TV show of the day? Or perhaps just a reprint of the press release for the show?
The article currently references this statement to this article: "Sloan Freer wrote in The Observer that the list was "veg-out, no-brainer viewing" which contained "plenty of debatable selections to shout at the TV about - especially when you get to the top spot, which frankly I think is a cheat."" Again, from the bits quoted in the article, it's relatively easy to establish that this is a review of the special, neither a program listing nor a press release. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Top TV". The Sunday Mail: p. G27. 2006-09-17. - Also some editor's favorite TV show of the day. Is every newspaper editor's favorite TV show of the day notable?
One review does not make a program notable. Three of them, in reliable sources, each of which deals non-trivially with the subject of an article do. Of course, I've given you nothing here that you couldn't already establish from the content of the article--you see, all the evidence of notability is there for you to see in the article--the only thing the paywall robs you of is the ability to effortlessly review the originals from whence those statements were taken. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I have incorrectly assumed the content of any of these sources, then by all means please correct me. However, if I have assumed correctly, then you clearly have 10 sources which prove the existence of the TV show, and zero sources that establish its notability. If anything, the closing admin will likely give far lesser weight to the empty "Great job!" keep votes from ARS than he/she will to someone who has actually checked out your sources. SnottyWong talk 05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats with this "obviously did not review the sources" slander? I reviewed a number of the sources, to the extent I could access them. The only thing obvious is that you forgot your Wheaties this morning, Snottywong. You simply disagree with other editors on whether the mass of coverage of this television special is weighty enough in the aggregate to achieve notability. This sort of disagreement is not uncommon on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I disagree that the "mass of coverage" in TV Guide listings and 200-word blog posts is weighty enough. The fact that you have actually reviewed these sources and have come to the conclusion that they satisfy WP:N (without any explanation apart from "Kudos to JClemens") should be uncommon, but unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's far from it. SnottyWong talk 05:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's also far from uncommon is folks who decide an article isn't notable, who !vote to delete it without apparently ever having read the article and its footnotes that clearly establish its notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, and see how the closing admin sees it. I still maintain that your sources fall squarely under WP:EXIST. It really doesn't matter if you can find 1000 TV Guide listings and 1000 articles that mention the TV show in passing, you will end up with 2000 sources which prove that a non-notable TV show exists. SnottyWong talk 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that you're assuming bad faith on RS'es you haven't read, right? Or further, that you haven't overcome the presumption (which is validated by the RS I found in Lexis-Nexis) in WP:OUTCOMES that a television program that's aired on a major network is notable? While I respect your right to disengage, you may want to clarify how those two issues relate to your objections. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see any assumption of bad faith in questioning the intentions of those providing sources. However, I do see a lack of a clear assumption of good faith in both sides of the back and forth on the sources and the nomination. Rather than discussing whether both of you think various editors have read what they are commenting on, please limit your discussion to the content. (Incidentally, the outcome I'm seeing refers to "Television series broadcast nationally". This was not a series.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 10:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Person A "I read this offline source, it asserts notability"
Person B "I haven't read it, but I don't believe you"
How, precisely, is that not an assumption of bad faith? Or, failing that, how have I missummarized the exchange? Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as OUTCOMES go, would you argue that "a television series" excludes a made-for-TV movie solely because it only aired once? Rather, what we see here is clear evidence that E! has re-sold airing rights worldwide--indeed, I have no idea why, but the reliable sources that deal with the content in depth all seem to be non-U.S., English-speaking papers (Australia, UK, Canada). It puzzles me. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming bad faith. I specifically disclosed that I was unable to verify a few of the sources, then I disclosed that I was making assumptions based on the title of the sources, and then I asked you to confirm whether my assumptions were correct. Where is the assumption of bad faith? As for WP:OUTCOMES, this is not a TV series so it's not applicable. Even if it was a TV series, WP:OUTCOMES is not WP policy, and furthermore it only says that TV series are usually kept. So, it would appear you are grasping at straws. SnottyWong talk 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've said everything we need to say, and we're obviously not going to change each others' minds. Unless you have any different arguments you'd like me to respond to, I'm going to wait for the closing admin's decision. SnottyWong talk 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you still !vote delete after I've explained why the sources you can't read meet our notability criteria is tantamount to you calling me a liar. You have no objective basis on which to !vote delete in light of those sources, because you claim to never have read them. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow, and I'm confused by your assumption of bad faith regarding the accusation that I'm calling you a liar. For the third time: I disclosed that I was unable to read some of the sources, I made assumptions of the content of said sources based on their titles, and I asked you to confirm if my assumptions were correct. Your description of the sources essentially confirmed that my assumptions were correct. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply saying that the titles of the sources combined with your description of the content of the sources didn't convince me that those sources establish notability. For the last time: all of your sources are either TV Guide listings, or articles which mention the TV show in passing. They only prove existence, not notability. There actually is a difference. None of the non-TV-Guide articles are actually about the TV show, they are all about something else, and they simply mention the TV show at one point or another. Try actually reading WP:N if you intend to respond, specifically the requirement of "Significant Coverage", and specifically: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". SnottyWong talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? I'm not going to respond to your WP:IDHT; I've given sufficient explanation, and you not reading it doesn't make it any different: How many "TV guide" type listings include named reviews of the material listed, hmm? Your own bd faith is showing, by the way. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I don't see can't see this as an encyclopedic topic. If there was solid examination of it in a book then fair enough, but in the real world I think most authors would get laughed out of the publishing house. There's no references to any reliable sources with significant editorial control, and it's really just a list of some researchers favourite child actors/actresses from ~20 years ago. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be summarising human knowledge, but I don't see that this is really any kind of summary, it's just a somewhat random list. It's a shame, because people obviously put effort into it, and it's actually well written but it's fundamentally misguided as a topic.- Wolfkeeper 06:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion they don't meet the notability guideline. The references are too ephemeral and trivial for the topic to reach sufficient notability individually or in aggregate.- Wolfkeeper 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per snottywong. Despite sources existing which prove this program exists (tv guide type sources), there are no WP:RS which show this program meets the criteria of WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It existed, sources show it existed. Doesn't make it notable - people can provide sources indicating every single TV programme in the world existed... Minkythecat (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Weak claim of notability supported by trivial referenced content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely routine coverage in tv listings that would exist for pretty much any individual programme shown. This does not show the notability of this programme. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources establish this minor tv show is notable. The sourcing standard for this wold argue for an article on every show that ever appeared on TV -- anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable tv special and most of the sources are merely trivial. I just checked some of the references that aren't available online on Factiva's database and they're trivial tv listings. The Daily Telegraph "article" is two sentences long. The Observer "article" by Sloan Freer repeatedly referenced above is also two sentences long. I don't believe the sources demonstrate this is a notable tv special. Sarah 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to look at the sources. Did you happen to notice that the Toronto Star article is 700 words? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, certainly the Toronto Star article is a much more reasonable length (Factiva's version is actually 913 words), however, the special is not really the subject of that article. Rather, the article is a satirical discussion of the Star's own list of child stars. It only mentions the show at the start and it doesn't even tell me the basics (like who hosts it), before going into the main and largest section (about 3/4 of the article), which is their own list of child stars followed by a short paragraph satirically outlining what each has done and the prospects for their post-child star futures. It's really not about this tv special and I still believe that the sources are inadequate to support a claim that it's a notable special. I appreciate the work you've done trying to find sources and editing the article but I honestly don't believe this special is notable and I've seen nothing in the 12 sources that come up in Factiva for the title that prompts me to change my mind about that. Most of the sources are trivial mentions of a couple of sentences and the ones that are longer are not really about this special but the child stars. Sorry, Jclemens, but I just don't see notability here. Sarah 04:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did all the Gary Coleman haters come from?--Milowent (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Quantpole (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats it got to do with hating Gary Coleman? Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::What'chu talkin' about Rob?--Milowent (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)withdrawn upon the recommendation of Mr. Drummond.--Milowent (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Snottywong, no significant coverage which demonstrates notability. Claritas § 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not surprised that a TV special that has been rebroadcast in international markets has become the subject of some newspaper coverage, beyond just TV listings. I've read the Toronto Star article; it's substantial coverage. Along with the brief reviews in such other sources as the Daily Telegraph and The Observer (brief but non-trivial coverage can help support notability), that's not a lot of coverage but it's enough for our WP:N guidelines. It's unfortunate that this discussion has perhaps become tainted by the dispute between Jclemens and SnottyWong. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Toronto Star article isn't coverage of this tv special, however. It's just a satirical article listing child stars the Star's staff came up with along with some commentary on the stars. The tv special, while no doubt prompting or inspiring the article, is mentioned in passing. Sarah 04:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:N, the topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources found have already been well analyzed by others so I will simply reiterate that the coverage for this special, mostly a few bare mentions. As such, the special is just not notable, even if it was interesting to watch. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've checked the sources, and as per the comments above unfortunatly they don't seem to provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The rough consensus is that the subject is notable enough for our guidelines, even if not strongly so. Some sources have been added. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Kappeler[edit]

Susanne Kappeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author and academic. However, does not seem to meet the rough criteria for inclusion. Moreover, this is an unreferenced BLP. Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added a reference and her bibliography. The person is clearly notable. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The varying spelling of her surname in the title and article don't help. Searches on Google and Google Scholar using "Kappeler" are more fruitful though I suspect not reaching the notability level that has been demanded on other articles. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the book the name is spelled "Susanne Kappeler" my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page to Susanne Kappeler. The AfD nomination template has been fixed too so it redirects here. I think we can get rid of the redirect when this discussion is closed, or maybe even earlier. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion,. plus sourcing..etc--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prior to nominating an article for deletion, opportunities for discussion should be initiated on the article's talk page along with possibly adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. I find it disconcerting that this article was nominated on the same day that it was initially created. That said, it appears as though the original poster's hand is being bit off at the wrist. Any problems that editors may have with this article can easily be corrected during the normal editing process. This article is not a good candidate for AfD. Please refer to the articles for deletion page that covers the process and criteria for deletion, along with proper Wikietiquette. Cindamuse (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thank you Cindamuse - that's only because the original poster's hand *was* a bit off at the wrist, being the first article he had tried to add to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My initial take on the article is that Kappeler fails the general notability guideline: the references in the article do not give significant coverage to her (even Hawthorne's academic paper is about her ideas and not a biography of her). However, based on the article being a scant day old, it is likely that other references may exist on her but haven't been located yet. If anybody finds a source that does report on Kappeler significantly, please drop a line on my talk page, and I'll reconsider my !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I an convinced neither by the article nor by the references that the subject is particularly notable. However, as with C.Fred, I am open to convincing by further additions. As things stand, the subject appears to be an academic doing a job, publishing a few titles along the way that do not sound world-shattering to me. Convince me otherwise... 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment the fact that her publications are not world-shattering is completely irrelevant, this is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. One of her books (The Pornography of Representation) was groundbreaking in many ways, and if you have the time and patience I can explain to you why.Mondoallegro (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . The standard of inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not a world-shattering career. It is notable as defined in our guidelines, not the vague higher standard of "particularly notable". An academic is expected to publish; it is the quality and amount of the publication that distinguishes notable from non-notable academics. I see at least two major books by important academic publishers, each in hundred of libraries, and with reviews available (I added some of them to the article). That would be enough to make her notable as an author, as well as fWP:PROF; in fact, considering her career as stated, I think perhaps authorship might be the better standard. Whether she meets the GNG is irrelevant, if she meets the others. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a bit weak but WP:AUTHOR looks passable, especially for The Pornography of Representation which appears well quoted and reviewed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folkcracy[edit]

Folkcracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Capcialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Base capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator appears to be promoting their own theory. No reliable sources available. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined to speedy delete this because it did not meet the criteria it was nominated under, but I do believe it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day, which is what this appears to be, nor is it a soapbox for promoting a particular idea or point of view. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, invented. One of a series of non-notable entries from this user. Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bubble Gang. Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Dating Doon[edit]

Ang Dating Doon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though there is no question to the notability of Bubble Gang, this particular segment requires significant coverage in reliable sources as a notable object on its own. The article has been in existence since May 2006, and until now it is still bordering on being a stub and wholly unsourced. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on the grounds 1. failure to meet general notability guidelines, and 2. the complete lack of reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, Howard the Duck. Why would you suggest merging if most if not all of it is unsourced? Would you consider a brief mention? – Shannon Rose Talk 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These guys even opened the Philippine Basketball Association season minus the guy that didn't speak, that means they were big enougb act in the 90s. I don't think this is controversial enough for outright removal w/o references. When there are no references, you just don't remove it when you first see them. You tag it first and wait for someone to fetch one. Removing uncontroversial statements w/o the benefit of tagging (so that someone mat find it) is detrimental since you are removing "harmless" info.
For references, this is an in-depth article about the sketch. They even had an album so that may satisfy WP:MUSIC -- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" –Howard the Duck 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Howard the Duck. One article in the entertainment section of an 11-year-old newspaper is hardly significant coverage. It will not satisfy WP:MUSIC because a mere segment of a gag show is not an entity capable of producing an album of its own. While the segment is, without doubt, highly-viewed by the author of that lone article, as evident in the use of such words as "phenomenal rise in popularity," there is, however, a clear absence of confirmation or collaboration of this observation from other reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they did have an album. It's still on the record bars. I don't think you'll need 5 references for a gag show sketch -- one is enough. WP:GNG refers to a stand alone article, not a part of a section in an article.
And yes, a newspaper article, no matter how old, is good enough in instances such as this. Like I said, you won't need 5 references for a single entry in a section. –Howard the Duck 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Howard, I've already added that newspaper cite to the main article in my first post.--Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bubble Gang. No notability outside of its parent series. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bubble Gang, per nom. - Gabby 21:04, 6 May 2010 (PST)
  • Keep As mentioned by Howard, these guys became part of the Philippine pop culture in the late 90's that they even have their own album (that is still being sold in the record bars up to this day), and even made several cameo appearances on films and other TV shows. Eli Soriano even admitted in an interview that the ratings for Ang Dating Daan soared since Bubble Gang started spoofing his show (I can post the video in YouTube if you like). Just because this article lacks references does not constitute that it should be deleted, since it is very difficult to find references for any topic, especially if it is Philippine based, related before the year 2000. -WayKurat (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WayKurat's information Trust me, it's notable (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin: - The nominator has a suspicious motive for deleting the article. The article was used as an "evidence" in the BLP Noticeboard regarding Soriano, which the nominator (Shannon Rose) is "up against NPOV edits". I believe that by deleting the article, the consensus in the BLP Noticeboard regarding Soriano will "tilt" in favor of her negative-COI edits. Isn't it that general rule states that an unreferenced article should be given a chance to "improve" (by adding first the "unreferenced" template)? Then, why did Shannon Rose immediately tried to nominate the article for deletion w/out looking for references first. There is a "fishy motive" behind all these. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not much to say- there's no consensus to delete this, but also no full consensus to keep it, either. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University[edit]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Notified: User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this for deletion because during a discussion here there was broad consensus that subcategories should be notable per se, which this list seem to fail. Sandman888 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete - it should be noted that I'm of the opinion that 90% of 'list of' articles should be removed from Wikipedia unless there's really a compelling reason for the list. Many of these lists are created to push a POV, and succeed in that aim regardless of the accuracy of the article. In this case, the relatively benign aim of the article seems to be to promote Princeton University, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the point of an encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Interesting format, useful information presented presumably as a "See Also" off the main Princeton University page. This is well crafted and informative and there should be a very high bar set for deletion of such fare. Not liking lists or thinking it flacks too much for a particular school do not seem to be anywhere near sufficient for deletion. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it meet the notability criteria? Specifically WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This topic has not received such coverage. Furthermore it seems like a content fork as this could be indicated on, for example, as part of a list of alumni / faculty for that university, as well as (obviously) the existing lists of nobel laureates. Sandman888 (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Would it not be more efficient to simply add a sortable "Affiliation" column to the table in List of Nobel laureates instead of creating dozens of redundant list articles? SnottyWong talk 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having one huge list is too much for one page. It is just a matter of size. You cant just add an affiliation column to List of Nobel laureates because it is set up as a matrix with multiple winners in each row. This is a standard almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you then agree that from the List of Nobel laureates, it is perfectly legitimate to form "List of Nobel laureates who belong to X", where X can be anything? I.e. X cd be University affiliation, alma mater, race, gender, country, religion, any demographic variable. So from the list of laureates, 2-10 or so different spin-off lists can be created for each different X. Is creating all of those list a good idea in your opinion, because I think it's redundant and then there's no limit for what different categories can be combined to create lists on wikipedia. I.e. List of vegetarian Nobel laureates cd equally well be created. Sandman888 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reduction to absurdity is needed for the debate. This was a featured article, and the nomination appears to be a disruption to prove a point based on the debate linked above, where the nominator's proposed guideline was rejected. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not reductio ad absurdum, but a clarification of principle. However it seems that what is article worthy should not be based on any principle but on an ad hoc basis. The guideline was not rejected, if you read it carefully, you'll see that they agree with the intention. I do not think an accusation of disruption is warranted here, shd preferable be retracted. Sandman888 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We slice and dice lists all the time, just as any almanac would do. Especially awards and prizes, the Academy Awards lists appear under numerous guises because they are so large. The only problem is that an error or a new addition has to be added to multiple places. Also see the lists of registered historic places. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current List of Nobel laureates table is organized poorly. I'd rather see it organized with columns for Year, Name, Category, etc., leaving space for other information like Affiliation. The current organization by Category is limiting and encourages all of these unnecessary spin-off articles when they are really not necessary. SnottyWong talk 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although, the currently existing List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation should suffice in the meantime. SnottyWong talk 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I've started a discussion on Talk:List of Nobel laureates about the table organization. SnottyWong talk 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-sourced article that is perfectly reasonable to break off from lists of laureates or lists of people associated with Princeton. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and notable list.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There already exists a List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation which contains this list (and would make a good redirect target). I don't see how this topic merits a separate article (by Wikipedia:Notability if you need a policy-based reason). How this list differs from "List of Nobel laureates who belong to X" (where X can be any university, country, or other plausibly relevant grouping) has not been answered. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is another interesting way to look at the data, but I find it visually cluttered compared to this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep because this list includes additional information about each prize winner, as well as about the Princeton's laureats in general. This information can not be found in the more general List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (please compare).Biophys (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you only get one vote biophys :) Also, I don't think the additional information warrants a whole article. And there are still unanswered questions about notability, no reliable source has Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton as a topic of discussion. Princeton, sure. Laureates, of course. The two together? OR in my opinion, cf. WP:LISTCRUFT. Sandman888 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and other almanac-like entries divided into useful sublists don't seem to follow the standard notability rules. They are just ways of making a big list easier to handle. I would like to see the other lists in this format, rather than see this one deleted. The main Nobel list can't be sorted because it is a matrix. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation exists but according to Sandman888, should be deleted also because there is no book or news article on this very topic. there is "no reliable source that has Nobel laureates affiliated with [universities] as a topic of discussion." <--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not accused you of anything. I'd appreciate it if you cd keep it that way too. Sandman888 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I paraphrased, and now substituted in your exact quote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a source for "list of ... affiliated with". Provided there are clear criteria for how "affiliated" is to be interpreted for the article overall (and ideally across similar academic bodies, per the relevant wikiproject) and that the entries in the list are sourced as meeting this, then it's OK and without relying on WP:SYNTHESIS either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Montana[edit]

Nino Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claims to notability are completely unsourced, and brief Google searches reveal nothing that links the subject to e.g. Lil Wayne and so on. Therefore probably non-notable. If sources can be provided, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom.

Article was originally PRODded; tag removed by article author (who presumably is the subject of the article, hence has a CoI). Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Transilvanian Forest[edit]

From Transilvanian Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and this one does not have significant third-party coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Perils, Inc.[edit]

Executive Perils, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was originally supposed to be speedy deleted under A7, but considering the behavior of the creator I will decide to ease down to a AfD so he can have time to show his article is able to be in the main space. Rohedin TALK 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout[edit]

Truthout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all facets of WP:WEB. The only media attention received is based off of the Jason Leopold affair regarding Karl Rove, and the attention is about Leopold and not really Truthout. Situation is and should be handled in the Leopold article. A Google News search shows no sources about Truthout and no meaningful linking to Truthout from reliable, credible sources. Should be deleted. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k

Uh, I count over 1,010 entries on google news ABOUT Truthout and over 200 articles FROM news source truthout including two spotlights which very few publications achieve. Truthout is a well known news source, is ranked in the top 100 at technorati and has a pagerank of 8.

Your claims are completely unfounded Gene93k.

NotalChord

No, you count over 1100 "news" sources that cite Truthout, nearly all of which are "independent"-style unverifiable publications that do not have the same sort of cachet that your typical reliable sources have. As for your second link, those are all Truthout articles - not about Truthout. The claims I have made are not unfounded, you're simply verifying what I've said in my nomination. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout has gotten media attention lately. Stories by Truthout were picked up by CBS's "60 Minutes" and Democracy Now!. Truthout contributor Beverly Bell has been reporting regularly from post-earthquake Haiti since January. Bell broke a story about Haitian farmers banding together to reject corporate domination, burning millions of dollars worth of genetically modified seeds donated by agrigiant Monsanto. The story went viral on Digg and Facebook and got tens of thousands of views. A story Truthout reported in June 2009, based on a little-known document that indicated George W. Bush had authorized the use of dogs and other methods to intimidate prisoners in Iraq, was picked up by MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and led lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, to begin making inquiries into these interrogation techniques.

There is probably a lot more evidence that other media sources pay attention. Google News picks up Truthout articles every day. You can see for your self here. Matt43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Truthout is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity in California. You can verify that they exist using Guidestar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Bill Moyers also cited a Truthout article my scholar Henry Giroux in his September 4, 2009 broadcast --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS and Moyer ones are legitimate links, for sure, but they still are not articles about Truthout as noted. That the CBS link is to Leopold should give us pause as well. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leopold is Truthout's Deputy Managing Editor. The article was a Truthout one. Truthout itself can't write articles, only its writers can. ;) NotalChord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ins't notable. Sourcing sketchy. Lionelt (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truthout is a pretty well-known and respected progressive news site. Greg Palast, Henry Giroux, Bill Moyers, Dean Baker and others are regular contributors. They have over 20,000 followers on facebook, they are in the Top 100 at technorati, top 6,000 sites on the new according to quantcast and have done a lot of high profile work including on-camera interviews with Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jon Kiraku and others. They are on the front page of digg (top in all categories) and reddit weekly and google news has brought several of their pages into the "Spotlight" area. They have hundreds of thousands of subscribers to their mailing list and raise about 1 million a year in donations. The site is definitely notable. 108.0.156.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I added a section with sourcing verifying Truthout's impact in credible media sources. Check out the Impact section and see if it puts your minds at ease. Matt43 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that. I vote KEEP ~~NotalChord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, KEEP 108.0.156.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
You added many non-credible sources that I will be removing. CNN in particular did not use Truthout, but just reported the same thing. Democracy Now is not credible. Etc. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell everyone who created Democracy Now! that they're wrong then. Also, CNN did link to Truthout on the article that you deleted. I guess I'll have to dig it up again. Matt43 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC) CNN did link to Truthout. It is a very small link under their video, but they put it in there because Truthout broke the story. Matt43 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any truthout links at that CNN post. Where is it? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, truthout is obviously notable. It is a very prominent progressive voice. Houseofbath (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed - this is what it says below the video box: "Added On May 24, 2010 CNN's Abbie Boudreau interviews Scott West, former special agent with the EPA, about two other oil spills involving BP. Show Pages - Special Investigations Unit - CNN.com t r u t h o u t" and the spaced out "Truthout" is a link the the Truthout homepage. Matt43 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matt. Ed, you're dead wrong on this one and I think you're behaving recklessly and ignorantly. 76.87.57.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, for whatever reason my flashblock didn't allow it to show. It is an entirely noncontextual link, however. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted at this point that, with the exception of Lionel, all people chiming in either have registered today or have no contributions outside of this debate or the article in question. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that Ed is a sad, sad man. Deleting Truthout is ridiculous and you are a fool for suggesting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.57.127 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wood's Wig is wholly biased, underscored by his comments, in seeking the deletion of Truthout. That in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia's terms and must be dealt with at a higher level. If Ed Wood is applying this standard to Truthout then he should swiftly apply the same standard to Alternet and CommonDreams and seek deletion of those entries, since neither is regularly cited by what he deems to be "credible" sources. That goes for numerous other articles on Wikipedia as well. Credible is subjective. What he may personally see as a non credible sources may very well be looked at as highly credible by many others. His comments about Democracy Now alone further demonstrate how utterly biased and out of touch he is. Democracy Now is one of the most well respected independent news sources on the web and is beloved by veteran journalists. Amy Goodman, the show's host, is widely known and cited time and again.

For Ed Wood's Wig, this smacks as a personal vendetta. Again, a violation of Wikipedia's terms. One only need to look at Ed Wood's history as a Truthout obsessive to gain enough evidence to see that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Common Dreams might deserve a second look, but Alternet is pretty worthy. The focus, however, is on this article. My "history as a Truthout obsessive" being limited to a handful of edits over the last few days, though? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthout is bigger than alternet in many ways and definitely has more journalistic impact. If Truthout be considered for deleting so should Alternet, Commondreams, Truthdig, Buzzflash, and others 76.87.57.127 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources disagree. Except for Buzzflash, which rightfully lacks an article. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Alexa, Truthout is ranked as the 5,066th website in the US by reach. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/truthout.org

According to Quantcast, Truthout is ranked as the 5,516 website in the US. http://www.quantcast.com/truthout.org

According to Technorati, Truthout is one of the Top 100 Overall news sites on the net. http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=truthout&x=0&y=0

According to Compete, Truthout has recently surpasssed Alternet in unique visitors. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/truthout.org+alternet.org/

According to Facebook, Truthout's Page has more fans, faster ads, and higher engagement than Alternet's. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Truthout/83865976093 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/AlterNet/17108852506?ref=ts

(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 76.87.57.127 (talk)[reply]

Ed Wood's Wig - I updated the article where you asked for citations. Thanks for pointing out those needed citations, I think the entry for Truthout is stronger because of it. I hope this will help to allay your concerns. Matt43 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't, really- my concerns are of notability and of articles about Truthout. Leopold's false rpeorting aside, such articles don't exist, and the linking from mainstream reports are haphazard at best. It should still be deleted. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ed Wood's Wig, your argument is weak and based on the evidence supplied here it's abundantly clear that Truthout has enormous value and you are violating Wikipedia rules by being inherently biased. The votes to keep truthout outnumber those who want to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not done via vote, but by a discussion of consensus based on the relevant policies (in this case, [[WP:WEB, WP:N, and whether reliable sources discuss the subject. Truthout fails all of these. You've brought up other similar articles like Alternet - you'll note that those meet those standards while Truthout does not. If you have information that shows that Truthout meets the Wikipedia inclusion policies, you should share them or the article will be deleted. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you, Ed Wood's Wig, to supply articles ABOUT every other news sources that is listed on Wikipedia and for those articles that fail to meet the same standards you apply to Truthout should be deleted. You are now on record stating that is the litmus test you are applying here. Each and every comment you make reeks of bias. Perhaps if you disclosed your identity we could see if perhaps you are a disgruntled former employee or someone who was affiliated with truthout. The point being that your argument for deletion does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be based on an issue that is much more personal in nature and your comment, "Leopold's false reporting aside," is clear cut evidence of that.

The fact of the matter is this: Truthout is widely read and cited by numerous mainstream and independent outlets and the people on this discussion thread have made their case by providing us with the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they haven't provided any links that show it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Please read up on those and help us out. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have the time or the inclination to work to improve the article, but simply clicking the Find sources - news books links above shows there is no shortage of available sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, again, the sources you note are either all unreliable self-published sources or (with very few exceptions) about the Leopold-Rove situation that can be, should be, and is handled at the Jason Leopold article already. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so far, we have a large volume of SPA support, but non-SPAs are only the nominator plus one delete and one keep. We need some more independent views. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has sources, a quick Google News search brings an adequate amount of sources Fast Company (magazine), Charleston City Paper, and I am pretty sure that there are more. --Edward130603 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first link does not go anywhere - the only Fast Company link I can find in Google is a one sentence referral to an interview about BP, which is not about Truthout. The Charleston City Paper is nothing more than a link to a book review, and is not about Truthout. Per WP:WEB, these do not confer notability. The only independent sources in the article, as I have stated, are about Jason Leopold and Truthout's situation with Rove. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With regard to notability, there seems to be specific, detailed coverage of Truthout by the Columbia Journalism Review ([11]) and a bit by Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post ([12]). Also, journalistic blogs of varying affiliations have some coverage as well: Salon ([13], [14] & [15]), National Review ([16]) and Crooks and Liars ([17]). The main topic of those articles seems to be one particular controversy (with Leopold)—but I oppose merging, because Truthout is presently independent of him, and would not be appropriately covered in his article. However, the referencing in the current article is abominable, and needs to be purged—it's mostly primary sources and irrelevant links. And given the controversial nature of the subject matter, the large quantity of unsourced and biased material should be stricken—that would knock the article down to a stub, in my estimation. TheFeds 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the "specific, detailed coverage" is about Leopold, not really about Truthout. And you're right - the referencing is abominable because there aren't any sources available to source the article with. A merge is inappropriate, a delete is the only appropriate thing because the article would then only have information about the Leopold/Rove conflict due to the lack of reliable sources. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more media sources: [18] ("Truthout, a non-profit news organization that operates a website and distributes a daily newsletter" is a sourced statement that can be used to create the opening line of a stub article) and [19] (which is coverage not related to Leopold). In terms of information about their charitable status, objectives, officers, activities and financial information, we can also cite their IRS form 990s (2009; others available at that site), which, although primary source documents, are submitted to the IRS under penalty of perjury and open to public inspection (hence they meet the "reliably published" requirement of WP:NOR). I'd say there are enough sources to have an article—but that it would necessarily take a different form than what we have now. TheFeds 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Ottawa Citizen piece, however, does not fall under the auspices of conferring notability per WP:WEB, as it is clearly one of the exceptions: "(3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses." If Truthout had numerous multiple articles about Truthout to work off of and confer notability, you're right - we could use that. We do not have those sources, though, even now with the worthy legwork you've put in. Same with your DirectMag piece- the story is not about Truthout, but about email, spam, and ISPs. The IRS statement, whether provided under penalty of perjury or not, is still self-published, and would open the door to all non-profits being included. We still have yet to see any sources that confer notability on Truthout. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that the Citizen piece does not confer notability; nor does the self-published IRS form. The DirectMag article seems to be valid towards establishing notability. TheFeds 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? It's not about Truthout, it's not the subject of the article, so it doesn't meet #1 of WP:WEB. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that no one is calling out Ed Wood's Wig for his continued bias and ridiculous rationale for deleting Truthout. Since when do Wiki articles on media organizations cite articles written ABOUT said media organization? That is complete BS. Maybe articles about MSM publications like the NYT but where are the articles ABOUT alternet and mother jones and buzzflash and common dreams? Where are the discussion threads about deleting those articles? I am unaware of people sitting around writing articles saying "hey the NYT is great!" or "hey look what alternet did!" Why is Ed Wood's g singling out Truthout? And why does he or she continue to deny that the beef he or she has is about Leopold? It's so utterly apparent! Has Ed Wood's Wig applied the same broad brush to the NYT which reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and relied on the shoddy reporting of Judith Miller? This is really a ridiculous attempt to breathe life into a four year old story about Karl Rove. People have moved on from it as evidenced by the numerous links that cite truthout and Leopold's work in general, including this story in the NYT from earlier this week http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/the-justice-department-seeks-evidence-of-crimes-in-the-gulf/?partner=rss&emc=rss

surely, if these reputable publications find value in the content truthout publishes other do as well. But Ed Wood's Wig, who wears his or her bias on his or her sleeve, wants to make it difficult by saying there aren't any articles ABOUT truthout. Well, Ed Wood's Wig, people don't sit around all day writing articles about news organizations. And it's not the fault of truthout if there aren't any articles of that nature. But if you delete truthout you must begin an exhaustive review of every other article on news organizations and begin the process of deleting them as well if they do not meet the same standard applied to truthout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up alternet buzzflash and common dreams. Whee are the articles ? where are the articles about those publications? I see none. And I expect you to respond with links to all three not just alternet. I think this needs to be taken to higher authorities at Wikipedia. Ed Wood's Wig is biased and no one person should have this much power particularly if they are so biased so as not to even consider any other argument than his or her own self righteous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buzzflash does not have an article and will not likely get one for a while. Common Dreams has an article, but probably isn't noteworthy either. I will be looking at that one next. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link please so we can all see who the reputable source is that wrote about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of who wrote about who? Common Dreams? I don't see much of any, but I haven't done searching yet like I did for Truthout. If there aren't articles about Common Dreams, I'll be nominating it as well. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Ed Wood's Wig represents the inherent problems associated with Wikipedia. One person's bias trumps the will of others. You've already been outvoted Ed. Perhaps the overall rules in general need to change. This is really self-serving and Ed is doing a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia and the article in general. Had it not been for the snarky remarks Ed made about truthout perhaps the discussion may have gone in a different direction. But from the get go, Ed made it abundantly clear his issue with Truthout is personal. I still chuckle at his uninformed comment about Democracy Now not being a reputable source. How can a show that interviews people, newsmakers that is, on camera not be reputable? Perhaps this is all about Ed's politics. Ed have you been trolling the entries of the right wing publications? Because if you haven't I certainly will and will demand you do the same with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will assist you Ed. Here's the link to Townhall.com. Delete away. There is absolutely nothing here ABOUT this incredibly popular website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, here's another: RedState. Another popular website. Not a single article about them from a reputable source. Delete away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another. Mediaite. One very brief mention from the WaPo. Fails in every other category. Delete please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPageMagazine.com is yet another ripe for deletion. Start the thread. Nothing in here but NEGATIVE press from Media Matters. But that's not a standard to keep an article, according to Ed Wood's Wig. So they too should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about Townhall, and might be right about RedState. I'll take a look at those along with Common Dreams. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually right about all of them. Not might be right. And that is merely a sample of what I have found. I fully intend to dig up every news organization article listed on Wikipedia and provide all of the links here and demand you address them in the same exact manner. Then, I intend to contact the wiki users who edit those articles as well as the individuals at these news organizations, and alert them to your despotic intentions. That is now my mission. I have thus far found 27 articles about news organizations that, under the criteria you demand is adhered to, would make these articles worthy of deletion. And these are not lowbrow publications. Some are very popular. So if you want to be a policeman you're going to have to police the whole neighborhood.

Moreover, Ed Wood's Wig, you are fully capable of juggling more than one item. So, you should swiftly begin deletion discussion articles on all of these other publications. There's no reason why this can't be discussed simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished collecting most of the article entries, Ed, that would clearly fall under your guidelines for deletion (and since you seem to be the only one here wanting to enforce it I am calling it your guidelines). There are 87. So whenever you are ready to tackle each and every one of these I will post all of the links. So no more singling out one news company over another. For every "lefty" news portal you need to balance it out with one from the right side. That will show you are not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not how it works, sorry. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - whatever is relevant and well cited to the leopold article, or very weak keep, the article is very poor and presently a fluff promotional piece with excessive reliance on primary citations to truthout and weak secondary citations, it just about appears notable enough for an article, needs the promotional fluff trimming back though and the primary links to truthout removing and you would have a four line stub. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see no justification for deleting "truthout". It appears to be as notable as many other news sources of the online and/or dead-tree variety. "Notable" for a news source means that it is cited or quoted by others, as opposed to being written ABOUT (which hardly ever happens for even the most notable news source). Truthout gets 462 hits at GoogleBooks, so clearly it is being used as a source by a lot of people. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a closer look, though - most of those sources are from vanity presses. There's some referencing, but, as noted above, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:WEB at all. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this for you, Ed, you are certainly dedicated to getting this deleted. If "number of arguments made against it by one person" was a criterion for deletion, this article would be outtahere. But I will stick with "keep". Out of 462 references in books, you can tell at a glance they are mostly vanity press books? Come on. This website/news source is clearly notable, i.e., attracts mainstream attention. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can because i did the legwork early. Some minor references in non-vanity presses like Routledge, for sure (but even then, we don't know if the references point to Truthout pieces or mainstream articles reprinted at Truthout). If it were clearly notable, wouldn't there be sources about it? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I agee with MelanieN. People don't write articles about other news sources. As for the idea of Merging it with Leopold's article the idea is quite ridiculous. Leopold didn't work for Truthout for years after the Rove incident and has only recently come back. Truthout is quite a separate entity from Leopold and bulking them together would be highly misleading. 76.87.57.127 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it wasn't? My IP is on every post. Do you think you're clever by pointing out that every post by 76.87.57.127 is IN FACT ACTUALLY by 76.87.57.127? I stumbled across this deletion thread and made an account specifically to combat the ignorance discussed. That does not negate my vote in any way.76.87.57.127 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Ed, you are WRONG, BIASED, and MISLEADING. The book citations are absolutely NOT from a majority of vanity presses. There are major publishers there: Harper Collins, Random House, St. Martins and they are included in the footnotes and that is apparent to anyone who wants to see it. Ed, at this point, I am personally going to appeal to wikipedia and have you banned for blatant bias or have your editing privileges revoked. You have failed to address the other websites that I have taken the time to cite here. Particularly the right wing websites that would also fall into the deletion categories. You continue to single out truthout and continue to try and claim that there aren't any legitimate sources referencing the website. You have a grudge. Plain and simple. Why not just admit it and stop trying to pretend you don't. You have done a horrible, horrible job of stating your case. What you have done is avoided citing the so-called "legitimate" sources that have linked to or referenced truthout and instead have gone out of your way to dig up sources YOU claim are illegitimate. YOU ARE BIASED. What you want, Ed, is to delete the article despite the fact that you have been proven wrong time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your accusations and rudeness. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Most" is not "all." As for the other articles, like I said, I'll be looking at those after. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album network[edit]

Album network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't even know what this article is--a record label? A compilation album? A soundtrack? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete It doesn't sound like a hoax or anything. However, notability should be established and, at the very least the subject should be at least verifiable by a reliable source.--John Chestpack (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting the vote of an indef-blocked sockpuppet. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete Is this page about "Album Network" or "Rock Tuneup 130"? Either way, it does not appear to qualify per WP:Music's criteria.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suspect it's a quickie fund-raising compilation by either a record label or a radio station. Possibly unauthorized because there are some big-name artists on it but none of them note their appearance in their own histories. (I checked this out for White Zombie, Belly, and King Crimson.) The release itself was apparently unnoticed by the outside world. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves[edit]

List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable list of frat meetings (see WP:TRIVIA) that does not warrant an article. Most of its sources come from the fraternity itself, and many of its editors are fraternity members. Wikipedia is not a frat's pledge manual. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)— Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This biennial convention is not just a "frat meeting." This is the supreme governing body of an organization that has initiated about a quarter of a million men. NYCRuss ☎ 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into main article. I suspect that the Grand Conclaves are of little note outside the fraternity. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists of meetings for the entire organization may be valid and represent an easily separable portion.Naraht (talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Notes about AFD:

To those who prefer a merge, the AFD proposing editor's objection is not that the information is on a seperate page, it is that it exists on Wikipedia at all. From the language, I do not believe that a merge would satisfy the proposing editor.

Also, I find it a little odd that the {{Not a ballot}} was used given that neither of the criteria on WP:Before (expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia) or (actual occurance of same) have occured.Naraht (talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This is not a list of notable events, and the list does not serve as a navigational aid. The only links from this page are to the cities in which the meetings took place. The meetings themselves are not notable, except perhaps for a "quarter of a million men" (i.e. 0.0037% of the world's population). A merge to the parent article is possible. SnottyWong talk 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a good match between this page and any of the 7 examples given in WP:NOTDIR.Naraht (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about WP:GNG then? SnottyWong talk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty straight forward to me:
  • Significant coverage: The events in the list have been covered by many reliable sources and there is no original research involved.
  • Reliable: All sources are available online for inspection.
  • Secondary Sources: There are a number of secondary sources cited as references, including Histories of American Fraternities in general (not just a single fraternity, but many dozen), coverage in published works of the time, as well as coverage from local newspapers.
  • Independent of the subject: The most frequently cited sources are not affiliated with the organization.
jheiv talk contribs 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#DIR. The article consists of a list of dates and locations. Since the organization is still in existence, the best thing would be for them to list this information on their own website. Abductive (reasoning) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a listing of biennial meetings of a historically notable organization. Similar listings concerning a single organization are commonplace on wikipedia (see below) and, as noted by Naraht above, do not seem to fit the examples in WP:NOT.

jheiv talk contribs 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no precedent involved in the last three, as none of them has ever been subjected to AFD. Frankly I think they ought to be deleted for the same reasons that apply to this article. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent is in the fact that they exist in article-space. But you haven't addressed any of the other lists that I've shown that also exist -- lists that seem to exist despite one or more of your disagreements. jheiv talk contribs 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already discussed the lack of notability of List of Omega Psi Phi Grand Conclaves with the main creator of that article. These articles have no place on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF for the explanation of why your argument is not compelling. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • E/C: I'm aware of that essay. Thanks for having me re-read it though. Consider the following, from the essay you cited:
In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.
Also, This discussion might be instructive and address some of the expressed concerns. jheiv talk contribs 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Crayola crayon colors has many secondary sources about individual colors, and about Crayola crayon colors as a group. The "grand conclave" articles above have little or no sourcing. What sourcing they do have is primary or "trivial", and the topic of all conclaves has no sources whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get this stuff. The Crayola list has two non-crayola sources that mention individual colors, one is simply a list of colors, and the other discusses 8 colors -- this seems far from "many secondary sources". Also, did you read the article about the Conclaves? Every conclave listed has at least one, sometimes up to four sources. Your classification of "trivial" is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but in this case, that is really all your comment amounts to. jheiv talk contribs 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to point out that sources that are published by the organization are fine for using as sources when the material is not contentious. Would the it be appropriate to say that Florida State University is the "best school in the nation" and use as a source their program guide? Clearly, it would not be. However, would it be appropriate to say that Google's revenue last quarter was 3.152B USD and use as a source their annual report? Absolutely.
That being said, the majority of the references in this article come from publications not published by the organization. jheiv talk contribs 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Fraternity / Sorority National Meeting Lists:

jheiv talk contribs 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the latter is to nominate them all for deletion on the same grounds as for the present article. Mangoe (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way -- I'm not sure deleting this and seven other well-developed and excellently-sourced (comparatively) articles is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I'll also note that your suggestion of merge above troubles me as it introduces unnecessary clutter into the organization's main article. I'll also reiterate my opinion that lists composed of elements that are not necessarily themselves notable, are commonplace on Wikipedia as shown in the lists I provided. Also note the large number of lists that are composed of Fraternity / Sorority national presidents, each of which probably are not notable individually, but when taken as a whole, a good reference and considered article-worthy. Similarly, I believe the same logic can be applied to the numerous lists of Fraternity / Sorority chapters. I respect your opinion, but I have to say, I disagree with your opinion of what to do with these types of articles. I hope we can solidify a policy within the Fraternity / Sorority Wikiproject when this AfD is complete. jheiv talk contribs 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely unlikely that articles on fraternities and sororities will be be given special permission to violate Wikipedia rules WP:N, WP:PSTS, WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:PSTS, there are both references from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and references from Newspapers about the Conclaves. Regardless of what other sources are, having an event rate an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in three different years where it occurs seems to satisfy both WP:PSTS and WP:N. Which piece of WP:NOT#WEBHOST did you wish to bring up? I don't see these pages matching with Personal Pages, File Storage, Dating Services or Memorials. Again, for WP:NOTDIR, which of the 7 entries in there, do you think the article applies to?Naraht (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of a meeting in the local paper are more primary than secondary. Webhosting means "a type of Internet hosting service that allows individuals and organizations to make their own website accessible via the World Wide Web." This material is of interest only to members of that organization, and it is not appropriate to Wikipedia's servers to host it. It belongs on the organiation's own servers or Facebook. WP:NOT#Facebook. Abductive (reasoning) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Conclave wasn't in Atlanta for three of the (now) four mentions in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A meeting that occurs in Philadelphia (1900) or St. Louis (1904) of a national group that is covered in Atlanta is certainly *not* a primary source. As for whether or not "This material is of interest only to members of that organization", I'm not a member of Kappa Sigma, In fact I'm not a member of any Social Fraternity.Naraht (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list meets WP:list and it is a list of notable events on a notable organization. It clearly qualifies as a standalone list, not to be merged into the main article. Inclusion criteria are clear, concise and not indiscriminate.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. "Skoot" Larson[edit]

Skoot Larson’s Biography


California native Skoot Larson has been in a music fan from birth. By age six, Skoot had acquired a trumpet, and fascinated by his father’s jazz collection, Skoot would play along with records of Louis Armstrong or Pete Daily’s Chicagoans. He later switched his musical efforts to the baritone saxophone. Skoot also discovered books at an early age, and enjoyed writing short stories from his elementary school days through maturity, often featuring musicians and jazz music in his writings. Over the years, Skoot has written restaurant, theater, and music reviews for such publications as the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Goleta Sun, and the Signal Hill Tribune as well as historical monographs for scholarly journals. His first jazz mystery novel, “The No News is Bad News Blues” was published in February of 2007 by Author House, Bloomington, Indiana and Milton Keynes, England. Skoot’s first career as a radio disc jockey and radio talk show host required the young writer to move around America, and eventually Skoot lived for a time in Australia and England. Skoot also expanded his career interests, working as a behavioral therapy counselor, college instructor, musician and publisher. In 1999, Skoot moved back to his home town if San Pedro and completed his Master of Arts degree in Humanities – Jazz Music History from California State University Dominguez Hills. While attending classes, he served as Conductor and Tour Guide on the Port of Los Angeles Waterfront Red Car Line’s historic “Pacific Electric” streetcar. Skoot served his country with US Amphibious Forces in Viet Nam, as well as deploying with the team that picked up the Apollo 10 astronauts when their capsule landed in the Pacific. He retired from the U. S. Coast Guard Reserve as a Lieutenant after writing the Port of Los Angeles Anti-Terrorism Plan for the 1984 Olympics. In 2013, Skoot retired to Rockport, Texas, where he launched a new series of mystery novels featuring Dave Holman, the Texas detective along with a novel of political satire, The Palestine Solution and a humorous spiritual novel, The Testament of Jessica Crystal. Skoot also writes a series of humorous fantasy featuring King Irv, a Jewish king in fifth century England. Skoot’s primary loves are acoustic jazz, detective fiction, Wagnerian opera and cats. To date, Skoot has published ten novels and an anthology of his poetry. His latest novel is a humorous fantasy, King Irv’s Big Adventure. 

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingface Demo[edit]

Nothingface Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cantons of Switzerland by area[edit]

List of cantons of Switzerland by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article adds nothing at all to Wikipedia. The article Cantons of Switzerland already contains all the information in this stub, and the table found in that article contains a sortable column with the area of each canton. No point in merging, as there's nothing in this article that isn't already covered in Cantons of Swizterland, so I move it be deleted Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom E2eamon (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nom says all. Dewritech (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on it being a good article that has served its original purpose, and has been superseded by a better one. Before the sortable table became part of Wikipedia, there was a perceived need for having different articles for things such as population, area, year of founding, etc. The other list was made in 2003, this one in 2005. I agree that there's nothing here that isn't on the sortable table, and while it was an important article at one time, there is no longer any reason to retain any article called "List of _____ by area". Mandsford 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all content is already in Cantons of Switzerland. East of Borschov (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; redundant.  Sandstein  06:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contact fuse[edit]

Contact fuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, removed by another editor. Article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and this article has the potential to become useful as an encyclopedic reference. Article is verifiable by independent sources. Oonissie (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Oonissie was the user who removed the prod. I have yet to see any sources that refer to this specific patent. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused - this article is not about a patent. It is a useful and informative stub article about the "contact fuse". More than 20 articles wikilink to Contact fuse. Oonissie (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of which you just added or linked. I went with the patents because that's the only source given on the whole page. This whole article has no other sourcing aside from the one primary source - that is, the patent. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that wiki-linking articles is somehow improper? What is your point? Oonissie (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely pointing out that a bunch of links do not equate to the meeting of notability criteria. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contact fuses are very common. I can't think of any reason they shouldn't have their own article, it's a notable subject. The patent mention is a little confusing and implies wrongly contact fuses are 'owned' by a specific company or idividual, and they aren't. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthwhile topic, nominator seems to have failed to do any other research or to have read WP:BEFORE If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Patrimoine Trois-Rivières[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The comments by Location and especially Stifle are persuasive. This is a coatrack as it stands. Even if it weren't, I'm unsure how the subject could maintain a stand-alone article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular homicide (Oregon)[edit]

Vehicular homicide (Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Coatrack / Soapbox article. Even if it weren't, I don't believe it's a notable subject. Dogweather (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One person appears responsible for all 6~ articles titled like this. Under current guidelines statutes would constitute primary sources (which can be used to illustrate the existence of something), every single state law textbook (they do exist for all 50 states) and every single case that cites the statutes would constitute secondary sources, so it would meet WP:V no matter how spammy it might seem.--Savonneux (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not an article I'd be interested in personally, as I don't frequent Oregon, but I can't see much wrong with it as it stands. There was soapboxing, possibly, but a nice bit of surgery has been performed. Notability is a difficult one. The Front Drive Sale run by Timmy and Laura raising money for Cats Protection in Little Sniggering is an obvious case. Are laws notable? Railway stations are. Professional footballers in Monaco appear to be. Rappers think they are. Possible an overall article about Vehicular homicide in the USA could include the variations from the basic law found in the different states, and save space while also providing a chance to compare. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark as a stub. Potentially useful information, significant topic, bad writing — needs work but valid. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally I think the individual state articles should be merged into a single list, but the topic is notable and easily verifiable. Steven Walling 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. The article is entirely original research but that can be fixed.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable and encyclopedic are two different things. Rehashing state statutes in prose is still a violation of WP:WWIN/WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If there is any information about Oregon's law that is particularly notable (taking into account WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT), then it can be merged with Vehicular homicide. Laws are notable, but writing up every Oregon statute, or those for the other 49 states, or those for the 10 Canadian provinces, etc, etc. is a bit much. What am I missing here? Location (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking in terms of individual state application, AFAIK no state has adopted the entire Uniform_Vehicle_Code, Canada might be different? No idea. I'm not a fan of having every reasonably similar statute having its own article but was trying to stay away from WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Savonneux (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic may or may not be notable, but the article currently at the topic is coatrackish and it would be better to rebuild from the ground up. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of laws. "Vehicular homicide", as a concept, is adequately discussed in the main article, and there's no need for an article on each state's legal implementation of that concept. Powers T 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Powers. E2eamon (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the statement made by Mkativerata. Rohedin TALK 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If only to avoid a precedent that the laws of every state, county, and village can be discussed, section by section. If there's something particularly interesting about Oregon's laws, they can be fitted into the main vehicular homicide article; the only trace of that I can find is the claim that their first-time penalties are unusually harsh, which doesn't strike me as worthy of note. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep based on other stuff. I do not understand why this stub is discussed separately from its peers. Indeed, all of them can be merged into something like Gun laws in the United States (by state) (warning: 236 KB!) but this should be a summary decision not a Cartman-style trick. East of Borschov (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as compelling, as there is a lot of notable commentary on the differences in gun laws among states, and no particular discussion of the same about vehicular homicide. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These types of murder/death statutes are notable because they tend to spawn substantial litigation and are discussed significantly in legal scholarly sources. The article clearly needs lots of work, but that's no grounds for deletion.--PinkBull 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Best[edit]

Jonathan Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Sticky prod was removed because IMDb is "a source".) His "best known for" role is as a small child in the backstory portion of a slasher flick. Not a major role in any sense. Mostly voicework since then, none of it of clear notability, much of it clearly not (redlinked productions, characters incidental to the storyline, etc.). SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SummerSlam until the event becomes closer. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summerslam 2010[edit]

Summerslam 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:ROUTINE. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to SummerSlam. Too early for such an article to be started. --  Θakster   18:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with that refinement. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Event is close at hand, reliable references exist to sustain notability at this time. --WillC 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is deleting this article for 3 weeks all that necessary? This afd is a waste of time for myself and all other users commenting on this. If you absolutely have to delete this blemish on Wikipedia, at least userify it so when it does become 'relevant' in 3 weeks it can simply be reinstated. If this was Summerslam 2011 I'd understand, but not this. Vodello (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to summerslam. If reliable sources exist to sustain notability, please provide them. The article doens't have any. In fact, the article is just generic information that is applicable to all such summerslam events aside from the date. I had a look and there does not appear to be much reporting about the event. With a redirect, the article can easily be resurrected when there is actual information. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Oakster SuperSilver901 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Enough said. Mal Case (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Will Mattspactalk 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Coast Digest[edit]

Third Coast Digest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the GNG. The only mentions of this website on Google News is in a handful of local Milwaukee press items. Fæ (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G12 by J.delanoy (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft excel security[edit]

Microsoft excel security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel such an article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, it may be construed as an attack on Microsoft. Shashwat986 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Abramian[edit]

Jackie Abramian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no indication of notability as an author. The books do not appear to have garnered significant critical review, and in the case of My Iranian Matriarchs, is self-published through PublishAmerica. Her gallery has had some minor coverage in local press. See [20], and [21] for examples. But this is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth university summer ball[edit]

Bournemouth university summer ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable student event. - bordering on promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not your school's campus-events calendar. May be worth a mention in the school's article, but I don't suggest redirecting since the capitalisation is all in lower case for some reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom E2eamon (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lenahan says it better than I could. Traditions and campus life can be referred to in the article about Bournemouth University itself. Mandsford 19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The people above me have said it better than I ever could. And for misspelling their town - To quote the article, "At the end of then night there is a traditional survivors photo on Bournmouth beach at approx 5am." (My emphasis.)DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the love of Jimbo and everything that is holy, this is NOT why Wikipedia exists. tedder (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Rogers[edit]

Vanessa Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. I can find no substantive treatment of this person in reliable, independent sources that would satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO or the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Deor (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I googled her, the first link is her home page. The article appears to be true and demonstrates she is non notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She's does have some press coverage describing her as "a highly respected trainer" [22]. As far as significant coverage, I'm not so sure. Cyberbullying is a very hot topic with the deaths of Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince. Rogers may be of interest to some readers. I have added some sourcing. Eudemis (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notable in Britain for her leading work in the area of Cyberbullying, and as a speaker and trainer known for her work with young men. Inniverse (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inniverse blocked as sock of Azviz.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news only finds one thing listing her and cyberbullying [23]. She writes for Young People Now which although only has 18,000 readers seems notable the BBC did commission here to work on two series, one of which has a Wikipedia article, The Baby Borrowers. Is the award she got notable? "highly and unequivocally recommended" review from Library Journal Dream Focus 04:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She has some coveage as you've mentioned, I'm not convinced it is enough to demonstrate notability though, it's pretty minor stuff and a weak keep at best, I'll stay with delete. Szzuk (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist for this particular "Vanessa Rogers". Although it is possible to scour the internet for tidbits of information on various individuals, that does not make it "significant coverage". Claim to fame is as an author and she does not meet the guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this resume. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong talk 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Can find no outside sourcing about her. On Google, a photographer of the same name appears more notable than she is. Google Books finds only books BY her, nothing about her or citing her. On Amazon, if you search for "Cyberbullying" (the name of her best known work), a dozen other books pop up - but not hers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techtalkradio[edit]

Techtalkradio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local radio show which doesn't appear to be notable, no 3rd party refs or sources and written with probable COI. Was prodded and deleted over a year ago and recently restored by request by User:Fabrictramp, not sure who requested Jac16888Talk 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USER:Techtalkradio Hi. Thanks for the Debate - I am the Creator of this Post and did it to direct listeners to the Wikipedia Page and utilize Wikipedia for all types of content. I have intended it to be informational and to provide insight to the Broadcast Radio Show and TV Segments, As far as this account being blocked, when did that happen or did it? There is another Radio Show calling themselves Techtalk Radio in Australia, is there possible confusion with that show? We have been on the air since 1996, written about in Books on Broadcasting and I shave served as Moderator on panels at CES and as a professional broadcaster for over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.119.153 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Judging from KNST's show page, this doesn't show up at all and maybe under the dreaded brokered programming umbrella on Saturday or Sunday mornings where they pay to get on the radio. No notability beyond minor local notability in Tucson. Nate • (chatter) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Celbridge[edit]

Yolanda Celbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known and Prolific author has 91 hits on Gbooks [24]. Inniverse (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately the Google Books hits seem to be books by this author or other Nexus authors, and a couple listing books in print. As I said in the prod, there seems to be no evidence that this is anything other than a house pseudonym for the Nexus porno imprint. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources exist to establish notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong talk 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 heterochromia. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with heterochromia[edit]

List of fictional characters with heterochromia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that "fictional characters with heterochromia" has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These characters have no relation to each other apart from one minor physical characteristic, useful for making a character remarkable, frightening, prdestined, or whatever the author wants with it. A category may be feasible. Fram (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In plain English, heterochromia is the medical term for the case of a person whose two eyes are different colors, and in 50 years, I've only met one person who had that trait. I like the list, it's interesting (particularly for other persons who have spent their lives dealing with the various initial reactions of every person whom they have been introduced to), and the reason given for the nomination seems to be a stricter standard of notability than we usually ask for. I may be misinterpreting this, but it appears that the nominator is seeking proof that there has been a list of people with two different colors of eyes published elsewhere. That said, I see other problems with the article and have my doubts that this would be able to survive as a standalone. I'd recommend merging it over to another article about heterochromia or to combine with one about real persons who have heterochromia. Mandsford 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My general rule for lists is not that such a list has to exist in reliable sources already, but that the topic of the list has to be the subject of reliable independent sources. If there are articles, book chapters, ... about "fictional characters with heterochromia" or "the use of heterochromia in fiction" or anything similar, then a list of such characters could be an acceptable article. However, when "characters with X" is not notable, then a list of characters with X is not notable, even if some of the characters are notable themselves. Fram (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge salvageable content into heterochromia and redirect. Heterochromia is a notable topic, and a list of fictional characters with this condition would be a worthwhile element of that article. However, most of the entries on the current list are nothing more than trivia developed from original research -- for example, several of the entries are cartoon characters who are depicted with two different eye colors (possibly for reasons known only to the artist). The list should be limited to fictional characters who are in some way documented to have biological heterochromia. Characters whose divergent coloration is not discussed in the fictional work or whose divergent coloration is attributed to some other circumstance (including, but not limited to, having one glass eye or one transplanted eye, being part-demon, having undergone a ritual, or being an extraterrestrial) should not be listed. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Orlady. I like the idea of this list. E2eamon (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Orlady, some of the list appears good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure trivia with no encyclopedic, almanac, or navigational value. Since a list of examples does not offer any additional incite into the subject of heterochromia, a merge would not be appropriate as it would be an "In popular culture" section. —Farix (t | c) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In popular culture would expand the scope of the article though and would show in my opinion influence and usage in manga and such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An appropriate "In popular culture" section would require that the entries be cited as examples of heterochromia in popular culture by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is why not every example on the list would make it, the notable characters with more coverage and such would be more likely candidates to merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Seven (ice hockey)[edit]

Big Seven (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, it is just a cliché. There is no significabt coverage in reliable sources apart from the list of hockey teams itself. I doubt the article can be ever expanded without WP:SYN or something like that. Blacklake (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Blacklake (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably should have just prodded it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Resolute 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced and rather uninformative article about a term that has remarkably few mentions in the press [25] to describe the seven nations (Canada, Finland, Russia, Sweden, USA, Czech Republic and Slovakia). As a word, it's not at all notable. Mandsford 16:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's one claim (These nations won all medals at the Ice Hockey World Championships since 1954) is not even true...the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia won every gold medal from 1963 to 1986. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are NOT the same thing as Czechoslovakia...and Russia is not the same thing as the Soviet Union. --Smashvilletalk 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Swanscombe[edit]

Wendy Swanscombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known and prolific author has 66 hits on Gbooks [26]. Inniverse (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: zero hits on google news archive. Six books on amazon, only one review ever posted by a reader. The books do exist (you can preview one on google books[27] -- random quote, page 132, "But another orgasm was evidently being brewed in another pair of fine hairy balls"), but commentary and coverage from the outside world does not.--Milowent (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said in the prod, no evidence that this is anything other than a house pseudonym for the Nexus porno imprint. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources exist to establish notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong talk 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likeable: Social Media & Word of Mouth Marketing[edit]

Likeable: Social Media & Word of Mouth Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Since it only launched on May 24, 2010, it has hardly had time to yet become notable. Although it is described as "award winning", there are no mentions of what awards it may have won. The only references given are from the firm's own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company has actually been around for 4 years now. It was formerly The KBuzz but changed its name on May 24th, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmalzone (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it around a bit so that there are more secondary sources, awards, etc. Please review again. Kmalzone (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Search Marketing Practices in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.119.64 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velleity[edit]

Velleity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage (which also belong in a dictionary). There's no encyclopedic content here. Powers T 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearian was one step ahead of me and has clarified the context significantly. I suggest the other !keep folks take a look at it when they get the chance. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is another perfectly good stub on a concept. There has been a rash of nominations for deletion of conceptiual articles on WP, and I have no idea why. Dictionary definitions belong elsewhere, per WP:DICDEF. However, articles about a concept belong here. I created this article, a while ago, which had been previously deleted, and I fixed it up. I guess this is going to need a second rescue. It is well-cited and discusses not only its definition, and how the word is used, but the concept (phenomenology) behind it. I am not sure what else the deletionists want, except to have an encyclopedia of biographies of celebrities. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Explodicle; I am still working on clarifying it and getting more citations. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this was the version I nominated; nothing about phenomenology there. I'm also not sure which of our articles on phenomenology is being referenced, since that page is a disambiguation page. From what I can see of the new section, the ground would be more appropriately covered at volition (psychology), since "velleity" describes merely a degree of volition. Powers T 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've read about velleity is that it is so small in degree from volition as to be a subtly distinct concept. Small children "get it" - "exactly the same, only different." :-) Bearian (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is well sourced and and met the criteria of WP:N and WP:V. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which I've questioned. The problem is content -- we have definitions, and usage examples, and not much else. Powers T 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a widespread known topic, but it is notable, which is shown by the references therein and many more that could be added that may be found online with the smallest effort. In fact, past outcomes have shown that concepts in philosophy and psychology may be considered de facto notable. Powers, I am not sure that your definition of "encyclopedic content" is the consensus definition of that term. Can you please explain in more detail about what you want, rather than that you don't seem to like the concept, or making just an bald assertion? Could you also explain a bit more about why your feel the concept is not notable? It is not a controversial concept and I have no axe to grind, so I am baffled about why anyone would want this to be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said that I "feel the concept is not notable". I never even implied that. In fact, I came right out and stated that notability was not being questioned. I'm not sure how it's possible for you to have missed that. Powers T 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons for nominating this are poor. The article has clear encyclopedic content. If you think something more than the "Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage" should be added, then discuss it on the talk page. AFD is a last resort, not a first. Dream Focus 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I most certainly do not want to see more added to what was there when I nominated it, because what was there when I nominated it was wholly unencyclopedic and needs to be excised, which is why I brought it to AfD. There were no other "resorts" for me to take. Powers T 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article had already been improved to the state it's in now, would you still have nominated it for deletion? --Explodicle (T/C) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably. It's pretty much still just a list of various usages and advocates for the use of the word, rather than a discussion of the concept of velleity itself. There's a bit of the latter, but it's sparse and overwhelmed by the former. Powers T 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should keep the article AND keep it marked for deletion. It's a perfect illustration of the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.68.139 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be well-sourced and notable. SnottyWong talk 23:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenio Halfhuid[edit]

Arsenio Halfhuid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; article is about a non-notable youth footballer who currently fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played a competitive first-team match for a professional club. – PeeJay 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As Per PeeJay's rationale
  • Delete - Having never played a senior pro match, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage to merrit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:GNG he has had his own article on skysports.com, has been referenced in an article in the daily mail along with a lot of mainstream football sites such as goal.com and and tribal-football.

In terms of WP:Athlete he has signed a professional contract at the club, therefore he is a professional footballer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl barrett (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE requires a player to have competed in a fully professional league, not merely signed a contract with a club..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I don't know how to format references, but I found this. Which provides plenty of information about the game. http://www.mobygames.com/game/think-quick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.156.100 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Learning Company. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Quick![edit]

Think Quick! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable Game Codf1977 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This game has been linked to on the TLC page for awhile, I just added an article about it. It should be a stub, not a delete, and expanded; many of the older computer games lack the coverage of more recent ones. As an example, Odell Lake has fewer Google results than Think Quick! but the Wikipedia article is longer and better written. --Candycandycandy (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Learning Company per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Marasmusine, I was unable to find any sources when I had a look a few days ago, none popping up now either. Someoneanother 04:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chatterbot Louise[edit]

Chatterbot Louise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this really notable, virtual Louise from PayPal? Can we merge with PayPal? Wintonian (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It can be linked with Paypal but cannot be merged with it as PayPal page talk about the company and its history, whereas this page talks about a new technology being used by websites for online customer service.User:Tangenceinc

Fare enougth, but we can merge to: Chatterbot can't we? not that we have to, just if we decide the content is worth keeping. --Wintonian (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Journal of International Law[edit]

Asian Journal of International Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Journal based on the fact that it is not due to be published until 2011 Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I proposed the article for inclusion and would propose to keep it. The Journal is to be launched formally later in June and is the first regional journal of its kind for Asia. (There are, by contrast, an American Journal of International Law and a European Journal of International Law[1]. Its connection to the new Asian Society of International Law make it, I believe, a notable development in scholarship and international law for Asia. Tempwikisc (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't even exist yet. The American Journal of International Law has been published for over a hundred years. TJRC (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised launch date now posted with link to newly active Cambridge site. First articles to be pre-published by end of June. Tempwikisc (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider recreating the article after publication (not pre-publication) if and when you have evidence of notability. TJRC (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm new to Wikipedia so this is appreciated. Tempwikisc (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirecting may be further discussed on the article's talk page, but closed as 'keep' lacking support for deletion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gon (video game)[edit]

Gon (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable video game Codf1977 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is currently very poor, not even bothering to mention what system the game is on (Super Famicom, not actually Super Nintendo as there was no US release), but general precedent is that nearly all released cartridge games from that era get articles. I'll clean it up a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Official video game released for the Super Nintendo and is therefore notable per past precedent. We will not change precedent today just because a notable subject is not expanded. There is no deadline. Rationale is weak. Vodello (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing devils advocate here, if the subject is notable then it needs to be expanded so as to establish said notability. I don't see that this article has done that. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't actually think it's notable, but I still advocate keeping because it fits within the framework of precedent to keep previous official released cartridge games as well as our generally very broad video game coverage. When one really thinks about it, extremely few video games are genuinely notable in any real sense, aside from a small handful that become part of broader popular culture (Pac-Man, Mario, Pokemon, perhaps Halo). We cover the rest not because they're truly notable but because readers clearly expect us to, and since sources do exist there's no danger in doing so (as there is in covering non-notable BLPs, for example). If we strictly applied notability criteria to our video game aricles we'd lose about 99.99% of them overnight, which wouldn't result in a better encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gon (manga)#Video game history I am in favour of keeping all game articles (unless merging is more suitable) if they pass the notability hurdle in terms of reliable sourcing, or are very likely to be sourceable at some point (which is the idea behind tending to keep cartridge-based game articles regardless in a lot of cases). However, when it comes to Japanese-only games we are often left with articles that are not only unsourced but often unsourceable. In this case the information is already housed within the manga article, the only reliable sourcing here confirms that the game was released for the SNES in Japan on 11/11/94, which can just as easily be written-up in the manga article. Someoneanother 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tang jitsu[edit]

Tang jitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable "sport" Codf1977 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - clearly promotional, created by a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed Austin International Circuit[edit]

Unnamed Austin International Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article full of "speculation", Name not known, Location not known, no confirmation it will be built (reminder that the 2010 British GP was meant to be at a new and improved Donington Park but after funding was not forthcoming it has reverted to Silverstone) Codf1977 (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Information readily available on United States Grand Prix. The359 (Talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the359 says. If the article is kept, it should at least change names, because the name of the circuit can't seriously be "Unnamed..." even if it is yet unnamed. John Anderson (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article simply needs to be renamed then. References cite that track is already fully funded and will be part of the F1 2012-2021 seasons. Failed funding drives for another track has no bearing on the completion of a fully funded project already underway. Location (East Austin, within 10 miles of the airport) has been confirmed by F1 and the builder in multiple publications, only the exact location is under speculation as that information has not yet been released.Hadlock (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; per User:The359. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It will be needed. Circuit name change but info on the track which will hold the US GP can't all be put in the 2012 article because there is too much. Name change must occur. Chubbennaitor 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while we'll need it in the future, we don't know when that future will be. We might need it tomorrow, but then, we might need it next year. We can always re-ceate it when we have to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; per User:The359. While an article will be needed certainly it won't have this name. Until such a time as the circuit is named (ground has yet to be broken! still a bit premature), other articles can comfortably carry the information, considering once the speculation is weeded out there should not be very much. --Falcadore (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so far too speculative. The article name is wrong so it shouldn't be kept even as a redirect. -Ulla — 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said. The Great Cucumber (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's already needed. It's the venue to the 2012 US Grand Prix. That's not going to change, trust me. If you want, only rename it to "Austin Internacional Circuit". RFG17 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
any claim that it is the "venue to the 2012 US Grand Prix" is pure speculation unless and until it is built - the best that can be said is "Austin is the proposed venue for the 2012 US Grand Prix" Codf1977 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Track not built yet and the Track location is not definitive, the track name is not definitive and nor is the track layout. The article contents that is worth saving can also easily be merged with the article United States Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is what WP:CRYSTAL is all about Gigs (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100000 (Year)[edit]

100000 (Year) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The year may well come but think that at the moment this falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather silly since the only fact given is that humans will have split into two subspecies, a process that takes longer than one year. :-) (Plus the Second Coming of Christ will have already taken place so we will no longer number years by the year of his original birth.) Steve Dufour (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It doesn't turn up on the search engine until you throw in the parentheses. Mandsford 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a hoax. If proper sources that indicate notability can be found and authenticated, then the article may be recreated. NW (Talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg[edit]

Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete I believe that this article is a hoax, and if it isn't then it is totally non-notable. I can find nothing anywhere else to indicate that Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg existed. I can find no evidence of the existence of either of the works cited as sources. I cannot even find evidence of the existence of either of the supposed authors of the two works cited. In addition to this, even if the information in the article is true and can be sourced (which I doubt) it does not seem to me to indicate much significance of the man. I shall therefore tag the article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I am also making this AfD nomination in case the speedy deletion is declined. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I agree that it looks very much like a hoax - not having found any evidence to the contrary anywhere (although this could be 'cos we're both looking through the same online sources) - I must take issue with the above "even if the information in the article is true and can be sourced". If it can be reliably sourced, it is notable by Wikipedia standards.--Technopat (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that. The nearest there is to a claim of significance is "Hindennburg is most renound for his avid support of Socrates and the development on this line of thought." However, there is nothing to indicate whether he published his views on Socrates, whether anyone took any notice of his views, or anything else to establish notability. In fact everything in the article, if true, is entirely consistent with his having been a completely unnotable philosophy graduate who happened to know Nietzsche. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Garbutt Peeke[edit]

Oliver Garbutt Peeke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local councillor. Fails WP:POLITICIAN because local councillors are not automatically notable, and fails WP:BIO because there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (the only independent source in the article is a passing mention in a local newspaper). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoastCon[edit]

CoastCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The non-profit organization that hosts Mississippi's science fiction and fantasy Convention. Very spammy article with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No third-party coverage of any significance. — Timneu22 · talk 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterargument. I disagree with the decision to delete the page Coastcon. What is considered "significant third-party coverage?" I ask because the CoastCon page is based off of the Mobicon page, also a science-fiction/fantasy convention. What coverage did they achieve that was of note? CoastCon is a recognized annual event in south Mississippi and has been covered by local news outlets every year. You say that the article is "spammy," and yet the style is very similar to the aforementioned Mobicon. If you can offer valid reason that CoastCon does not deserve the same notice, I will acquiesce. — Whtknt (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh. The fact that Mobicon is a redlink does not really help your case. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the link should be MOBICON. Don't know why they capitalized it. — Whtknt (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that we also now have supporting links to media coverage. — Whtknt (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, does that give us any more credibility. Can we move past this, now? — Whtknt (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't. We are a long way from proving this notable. Have patience and let the discussion take its course. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm torn on this one. The convention gets a ton of coverage in local Biloxi media - but only in local Biloxi media. I'm inclined to keep it despite the absence of any wider notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of local interest only, and attendence figure is extremely low (and unsourced too!). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a substantial convention with reasonable coverage in both SF and mainstream media. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert de Bruges[edit]

Robert de Bruges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed for deletion because "No reliable sources for this pseudoscientific article. Theory created in The Temple and the Lodge of Baigent and Leigh (of Da Vinci Code fame), it was only picked up (apart from blogs and fora) by Michel Roger Lafosse, the self declared heir to the throne of Scotland. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate such baseless theories." ProD removed by article author (without summary, but other reversals relating to the same article were done "Ex parte and paranoid administrator."[28]). The article currently has two sources, one to an unsigned article at baronage.co.uk, and one to a 1734 source. However, I have been unable to verify the 1734 source, having found instead a 1747 book by the same author, discussing the same thing (the donation of an altar from Oostburg to Gent by Balduin bishop of Tournai), but it places this in 1111 (not 1046) and with Archdeacon Lamberti, not Robert de Bruges.[29] Anyway, even assuming that there has been a Robert, castellan of Bruges in 1046, there is nothing linking him to Robert de Bruce in any reliable source[30], only in the Baigent and Leigh wishful history book "The Temple and the Lodge"[31]. Even as pseudoscience, this has hardly received any attention38 Google hits There is no evidence that he is the son of a count of Louvain, but he has to be, as this whole story is based on one (supposed) mention of a castellan, the possibility that said castellan moved to Normandy, and the similarities between heraldic symbols in Leuven and Scotland. The missing link was between Leuven and Normandy, so let's fabircate a son of the count of Leuven out of thin air... Funny fiction, but not the thing Wikipedia should be used for. This book has a whole chapter on the Castellans, but doesn't mention Robert de Bruges. Probably because, while there is mention of a Robert (or Robrecht), castellanus of Bruges, there is no mention at all to be found of a "Robert de Bruges" in any source.[32] See e.g. the equally unreliable source where Robert is succeeded by his son-in-law and by a second son-in-law afterwards, who all remained in Bruges and weren't called "De Bruges".

So, to summarize, we have one old document about a "Roberti castellani Brugensis", and everything else in this article, including the title, his ancestors, and his descendants, is fabulation in one book by some pseudo-historical writers, repeated in a few fora and blogs. Fram (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No opinion on notability of the subject for the moment, but note that the article's creator, User:Nightsturm has attempted to remove[33] the AfD tag from the article without the AfD being formally closed. I have restored the tag and left a warning at User talk:Nightsturm. Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Significant WP:V problems, as pointed by the nominator. In any event, insufficient evidence for passing either WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient sources for an article, especially considering the pseudohistorical nature of the sources we have. Alternatively, this can be a redirect to The Temple and the Lodge. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ref 1 indicates that he did exist and was castellan of Bruges in 1054. Everything else is pure specualtion, which in WP, we call WP:OR. In this case the OR is not by the WP editors, but the compiler of an external website (Ref2). The choices are (1) Delete (2) reduce to the statement about his existence and "some researchers have suggested him as a remote ancestor of the Robert Bruce". At this remote period biographic (and genealogical) details are often sketchy (or non-existent). Unless there is something substantial to say about him, I would suggest he is NN and the article should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polynesian Conflict of 1286[edit]

Polynesian Conflict of 1286 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it's a fake article i believe YoYaYo123 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that when the article was created it had a large number of references to books. These were removed by the nominator in this edit with the edit summary of 'none of these sources have anything to do with article', and it would be helpful if someone could verify that the references were hoaxes. The book 'The Polynesian Conflict of 1286' doesn't show up on a search of Google books and isn't in the holdings of the National Library of Australia, so it may not exist. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the sources. This is in order to allow editors to check their provenance and to enable them to better determine the validity or otherwise of this nomination. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about this book as well, the ISBN doesn't seem to check out. I'm hoping it is a typo that the author can correct, but it does lend some weight to the hoax argument. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) delete It probably happened but I couldn't find any reliable sources online. I don't entirely agree with the reason for nomination, but nevertheless, I couldn't find anything reliable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It feels like a hoax. The details seem much too clear when what we know about it would have been based on oral traditions by both sides in the conflict. Would they both give the same account? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A brilliant hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. User:Talekhistor appeared just briefly enough to contribute this gem [34] and even added some fake references to real books, but to nobody's surprise, none of these mention anything happening in 1286. [35] [36] [37]. Nice work though. It stayed up for awhile, which either means that people thought it sounded true; or, more likely, nobody actually looked at it. Mandsford 13:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. Thanks for the detective work. The small number of page views (about 100 a month) indicates that this editor wasted their time. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoomoot[edit]

Yoomoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was speedy deleted as an A7 but was recreated during the deletion review. The original speedy was endorsed but there was consensus that the sourcing on this improved version required a discussion before further deletion could be considered. This is a procedural nomination as the closer of the DRV and I thereby express no personal opinion on this article Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 3 articles primarily on this topic all seemingly from reliable sources. Thus meets WP:N and criteria 1 WP:WEB. Hobit (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last article isn't independent per se, but the fact they asked a founder to write the article about the broader topic would seem to indicate a third party evaluation of the importance of the company. Hobit (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Techcrunch is a blog. Never heard of thrillist. Please read over WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Techcrunch calls itself a webblog but I'd have to say it is structured much like a newspaper including having a professional journalist as the editor. I'm also missing the part of WP:RS where any news source Stifle hasn't heard of doesn't count as an RS :-). But I'll post both to the appropriate noticeboard later to get further input on both. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, which isn't surprising considering it just launched. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woodridge, Illinois#Education. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Junior High School[edit]

Thomas Jefferson Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Junior High Schools do not fall under WP:NHS and the article has little prospect of meeting the GNG. Fæ (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Medical International[edit]

Remote Medical International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, appears to be a advertsing beard under the guise if a well sourced article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Assuming good faith on the motivation for creation, but I am not seeing anything close to adequate secondary sources on Google. Jminthorne (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was going to say keep, but unfortunately this published reference is rather promotional, and another spammy sentence is backed up by this source. So, a good mix of advertising and notability problems coalesce. Minimac (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rescue Honestly, I see the concerns of the proposer and others, but I think that deleting would be rather trigger-happy. Sources do exist, even if they aren't perfect, more notable ones can probably be found, and the article re-written to be less promotional. I have also nominated this article with the Article Rescue Squadron. In short, I think an AfD is unnecessary at this time. The article was only created yesterday, I think proposing it for deletion 3 minutes after creation for such correctable issues is a bit ridiculous. I cite WP:DEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE. If you still disagree, I suggest WP:INCUBATE as a constructive alternative to flat out deletion. --Pstanton (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I found this news story about their training program in a national newspaper.[41], and this[42]..... And that was just by clicking into a news search through a button on the rescue template box. --Pstanton (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Sun Sets (film)[edit]

As the Sun Sets (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No explination as to why the film is notible. Wintonian (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Looks like an obvious hoax. Minimac (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article to indicate notability, even if it exists. I can find nothing anywhere about this film. The article does not tell us who made the film, who acted in it, when it was made, or anything else that would enable us to verify its existence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely hoax. Searches find no sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete. There isn't much I can say here that hasn't already been said, but JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not even have an IMDB entry. Vertainly a hoax. --Triwbe (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V and [{WP:GNG]], even if it isn't a hoax. Claritas § 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Petrella[edit]

Nadia Petrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer. Internet searches have yielded no significant coverage. The one source given in this article is a review where Petrella is not even the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - The review of her performance indicates that she will likely become notable in the future. But the lack of coverage now is insufficient to establish notability. Coming 3rd in a national music competition puts this in the "weak" range of delete. If more sourcing can be found, then it could push this over the notability bar. I was unable to find such sourcing in my search. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She may well become notable in the future (from the review, she appears to be very talented), but it's way too soon to tell, and way too soon for an encyclopedia article. She made her debut less than a year ago and with an extremely small start-up opera company that uses a student orchestra. The other company she apparently sings for (Ottawa Pocket Opera) puts on operas with piano accompaniment only and "emerging" singers. There is one article about her in a local Canadian newspaper, but that's it in terms coverage devoted to her. For a minimally notable opera singer, I'd be looking for at least one of the following (in lieu of multiple coverage): leading role (preferably multiple ones) with a major opera company or companies; two or more recordings with a notable classical music label; at least two appearances as a soloist with a major orchestra in a major venue; 1st place in a notable national singing competition or 1st/2nd place in a notable international competition. I'm afraid none of these are present yet. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OperaUpClose[edit]

OperaUpClose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable. While there are sources given for this article, in my view they are not significant enough to establish notability. The company itself is really not the primary subject of any of the sources; two of which are performance reviews and one which is really more about the director. My searches for reliable independent source where the company itself is the primary subject (ie not a performance review) have yielded nothing; and really that is what is needed in this case. 4meter4 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Some of the claims in this article are completely untrue; such as "the longest running continuously performed La bohème of all time". Without even examining the Met's history and other major houses (many of which I suspect could easily challenge this claim), the Broadway run of bohème ran for 6 shows a week for 7 months in 2002-2003 which beets out the 5 month run of this company (see here). Further, this company was not even the first to stage operas in a pub; its been done before by several other companies (most notably the Montana Lyric Opera in the US which performs in a pub with established opera singers like Monica Yunus of the Metropolitan Opera). Really this is just a local novelty that drew some minor press coverage (Come down y'all for a beer and cheep show seems to be the jist).4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously notable per WP:GNG. The press coverage referenced in the article is already sufficient to verify notability - the interview with the director is entirely in the context of this directorship of OperaUpClose, and the production reviews are the usual way by which the notability of a theater company would be established. Five minutes on Google suggests there are a large number of other independent sources discussing OperaUpClose which could be added to the article. Many of these articles do specifically talk about OperaUpClose as a subject, not just their productions.
This "local novelty" has attracted national press coverage in the UK[43] [44] [45] (and many more) and as far afield as Israel [46] and Australia[47].
The issue raised by 4meter about whether or not it is the longest running performance is clearly a content issue which should not be considered as part of a deletion decision, and I have no idea whether it is true or not, but it is clearly verifiable: [48]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thparkth (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 June 2010
  • Keep — it probably scrapes GNG given the coverage. The UK papers cited are national papers, not local, plus it made the news in Australia as well, and opera companies almost inevitably draw their notability from the productions. But with a couple of provisos:

    1. The write-up in The Cock Tavern Theatre be shortened to one sentence with a link to this article (which had been copied verbatim from there without proper attribution).

    2. "longest continuously performed La Boheme of all time" is clearly untrue, as 4meter4 pointed out.[49] The Stage reference merely repeats the company's press release.

    In fact. I'm going to fix both issues now. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - this company appears to have only produced one opera and does not very obviously appear to have plans to produce any more. Nevertheless, given the amount and weight of coverage, as noted by Voceditenore, I don't see why they shouldn't have their 15 minutes of Wikipedia fame. --GuillaumeTell 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex (paranormal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vortex (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubiously disambiguated from vortex. Believers in the paranormal see swirls and they call them vortices. There's not much more to this and no chance for expansion. We don't have articles on vortex (bathtub), vortex (video games), or vortex (swimming holes) for similar reasons. Article seems to have been recreated in defiance of the previous AfD to boot. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. Blocking author and a few of his sockpuppets perpetrating the same hoax. Wknight94 talk 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McDaniel[edit]

Bill McDaniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject, thoroughly searched google news archives with no success so does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The infobox for the article hints at the fact that he played for the 1982 Boston Red Sox but here are the complete stats for that team and he is not listed. Articles for career minor leaguers must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to pass WP:NSPORTS. I realize that WP:NSPORTS is not a policy or guideline but the I believe the lack of reliable sources available speaks for itself. J04n(talk page) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...From the Pagan Vastlands[edit]

...From the Pagan Vastlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and no assertion of notability is made here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable athlete. Prsaucer1958 (talk)

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

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon[edit]

The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An addition to the Book of Mormon. It does not matter whether it is authentic or not; the only issue here is whether it is notable. I submit that it is not notable and this article is pure spam. Warning. There has already been blatant sock puppetry in the talk page. Expect more here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it does not meet the notability requirement.Sealednot (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon is both notable and worthy of notice. The subject matter has been discussed extensively in the following other articles of Wikipedia: • Alvin Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, Jr.) • An Insider's View of Mormon Origins • Angel Moroni • Anthon Transcript • Anti-Mormonism • Archaeology and the Book of Mormon • B. H. Roberts • Book of Mormon anachronisms • Book of Omni • Cumorah • Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. • Golden plates • Joseph Smith, Jr. • Laban (Book of Mormon) • Limited geography model • Linguistics and the Book of Mormon • List of Latter Day Saint movement topics • Lucy Mack Smith • Manuscript • Mark E. Petersen • Mark Hofmann • Mark Hofmann • Mormonism and engraved metal plates • Mormonism and Judaism • Mormonism Unvailed • Origin of the Book of Mormon • Paul R. Cheesman • Plates of Nephi • Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting • Record of the Nephites • Record of the Nephites • Reformed Egyptian • Salamander letter • Search for the Truth (video) • September 21 • Standard Works • Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)

Evidence that this particular article on the subject is both noteworthy and worthy of notice is established, in part, by the extensive debate concerning the claims made by Christopher Marc Nemelka about the Sealed Portion discussed in the article. This debate has continued for several years, as revealed in the following websites, discussion groups, and media coverage:

list of URLs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

axiominvestigator.blogspot.com/.../responses-to-chris-nemelkas-answers.html

blog.mrm.org/2010/05/authorized-and-official-biography/

bookofmormononline.net/blog/the-sealed-portion/

books.livingsocial.com/lists/1017083-atheism-agnosticism-religion?

bookstore.xmlwriter.net/books/search/1-Christopher+Saint.html

dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries

en.fairmormon.org/Specific.../Christopher_Marc_Nemelka

en.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-marc-nemelka/

en.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/

entreated.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

es.fairmormon.org/FAIRMormon:Portal_de_la_comunidad

fr-ch.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/

freesitereview.blogspot.com/

gooleoo.com/.../comment-on-the-sealed-portion-by-getterdone481.html

groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

groups.yahoo.com/group/marvelousworkandawonder

iipuu.com/youtube.php?vq=nemelka&type=youtube

ilovemormons.wordpress.com/.../a-marvelous-work-and-a-wonderful-sequel/

ldsmovement.pbworks.com/Marvelous%20Work%20and%20a%20Wonder

marvelousworkandawonder.com

memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/.../sealed-plates.html

memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/.../sealed-portion-of-book-of-mormon.html

mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12907

mormonmatters.org/.../have-you-read-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon-yet/

mybookshop.blackapplehost.com/store/christ1.htm

ndgmedia.com/products/Golden-Plates.html

news.justia.com

onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/.../the-spiritual-wife-doctrine/

packham.n4m.org/prophet2.htm

pearlpublishing.net/store/bookdetails/tsp.htm

polygamybooks.org/.../why-would-an-american-want-to-convert-to-islam.aspx?

prfree.com/index.php?action=preview&id=24607

sealednot.wordpress.com

successdb.com/tag/lds+church/2/

thetruth.dontexist.net/O/pdf.php?text&file...pdf

www.123people.com/s/christopher+read

www.amazon.com/Sacred-not-Secret.../dp/0978526473

www.aolnews.com/topic/christopher-nemelka

www.apologeticsindex.org/680-polygamy-sects

www.asamonitor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18131&pid...

www.bookhills.com/The-Sealed-Portion-The-Final-Testament-of-Jesus-Christ-0978526465.htm

www.bookhuddle.com/book/2433743/The-Immortal - Cached

www.bookrenter.com/the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-0978526465-9780978526467

www.canadastandard.com/index.php/ct/7

www.connorboyack.com/blog/luciferianism

www.couol.com/books/author-Christopher+Marc+Nemelka

www.directtextbook.com/.../sealed-portion-the-final-testament-nemelka

www.easybooksearch.com/book_description/0916847012

www.examiner.com/Subject-Christopher_Nemelka.html

www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon506.htm

www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=11025&sid...

www.freeread.com/archives/2725.php

www.ghostvillage.com/ghostcommunity/lofiversion/index.php?t25833...

www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=90367...5...

www.groupsrv.com/religion/about109499.html

www.irshelp.biz/products/Golden-Plates.html

www.iyares.com/books/s/?q=Jesus+the+Final+Days

www.josephsmithbiography.com/

www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1463

www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008_09_14_archive.html

www.massweed.com/products/Golden-Plates.html

www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/11887-lost-pages-of-bom-resurfaced/

www.mormonstruth.org/massacre.html

www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm

www.newsrunner.com/entity/top-stories/christopher-nemelka/.../0/0

www.nydailynews.com/topics/Christopher+Nemelka - Cached - Similar

www.puppstheories.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4615

www.shelfari.com/o1518327948

www.thesealedportion.com/

www.univision.com/video/buscar.jhtml?query=+NEMELKA&modifier...

www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters.../2005january.htm

www.wikio.com/.../general-books-reviews-49894-page25-sort0,b.html

www.wikio.com/.../the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-8015269,b.html

www.wwunited.org

www.yasni.de/person/nemelka/%20/nemelka.htm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5u_jzCzV48

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXm6VM6LHA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I personally don't have the time to go through each of those sources individually right now but I can already tell that many of them probably don't qualify as 'reliable sources' as Wikipedia defines that term. You want to avoid things like personal blogs, forum/BBS postings, YouTube videos, promotional websites (in most cases) and small or unreliable wikis. With that being said, there might be some reliable sources in that list; I didn't go through them all. Another issue is whether this article is about 'the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon' (presumably a general aspect of, or relating to, LDS theology) or 'The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon' (a specific published book on the topic by a specific author). There are different notability standards depending on which it is. Just because 'the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon' (presumably a theological concept) is mentioned on other pages does not mean this specific book on the topic is notable. --MidnightDesert (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By that logic I could write a book titled "Salt" and include every web page that mentioned "Salt" as evidence of notability. This is a specific work, I suggest reading WP:NBOOK, it is an official guideline applied to all book articles. Quick summary of threshold standards: Books should... be available at a dozen or more libraries..., and the part on self published works: it should be especially noted that self-publication... indicates, but does not establish non-notability. [50] --Savonneux (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Savonneux, for your comment to mine. Each of the websites, discussion groups, and media references is a "reliable source" in that they are active, productive online discussions, debating the pros and cons of various controversial issues involving the subject matter. More importantly, to respond to your last point, EACH site I have sourced includes specific debate, pro or con, on the specific subject of Christopher Nemelka's claims that the "sealed portion" referenced in this article is what it purports to be.

Please let me know if there is other evidence I can provide you to establish that this article is, indeed, notable and worthy of notice.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rvessels, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. --MidnightDesert (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators comment[edit]

Hi Roger, To make certain I understand your comments from various other locations, my personal talk, the discussion page, and other contributors comments, that essentially unless we have 3rd party sources- something published directly about this proposed article content/subject, (and not just one or two but a lot of things that I suppose you or I would might refer to as main stream media) if I read your comments correctly above, you'll be deleting this whole thing a Spam; is that right? - I would think if you could give us more time,(1 or 2 weeks perhaps?) from the simple list that Rod Vessels provided above, that we could provide the "notability required" to justify its ability to comply with Wikipedias requirements and remain as a legitimate article. -Thank you for your time Roger, I do appreciate the efforts you've made to try and help in the way you best see fit- I personally wish I/we could make this work somehow - I believe it would be quite helpful for many as a good source to find information... Do we still have a few days left to find notability reference or are we just wasting everyones time and you've already made up your mind? Sincerely and Thank you- Johnny 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)

  • AfD discussions remain open for seven days. But why do you need time - if the evidence of notability does not exist now, it is not going to magically appear in the next few days. Your COI is obvious so my best advice is: allow the present article to be deleted. You may be confident that once the book becomes notable, an established Wikipedia editor will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So not only do you falsely accuse me of "sock puppetry" above and on my talk page, you are now telling me I have a Conflict of Interest? Amazing how you get to know so much about another human being whom you've made presumptions about whom you've never met- This was Never a Conflict of Interest for me- I would GLADLY welcome people to post somthing tangible instead of name calling on this discussion - I do not feel it has been anything but bias to get it deleted for your own agenda- you even admit it! "Get real man - all I have done is moves to get the article deleted" (So much for "do not bite the newbies" policy) I feel differently -otherwise I would NEVER have taken the time to post this to begin with - I believe it is Noteworthy - it is something I (and many others) have read about for the majority of my lifetime waiting in anticipation - and I think this one here is of interest so have the majority of others who have commented as well-
This comment from you should raise a red flag that what you've said isn't correct- even you realize something isn't right- I've not made any of this up, there are no "sock puppets" and I am NOT Christopher! You wrote yesterday "I can understand your creation of a number of sock puppets to support you but what is the rationale behind creating Sealednot (talk • contribs • logs) who argues for deletion? — RHaworth" I'm sure Sealednot doesn't even have the answer for that - he certainly opposed Christopher or anything to do with him/it/ but he I'm sure will attest to the fact I am not him and if he's even remotely sincere he will also admit I never asked him to add any comments- he did it of his own respected free will.
Bottomline - this article was simply set (with good intent) to be a place where information can be recorded and added to over the years as more and more information is published about it- I see other wiki articles for books that are not in question like this is and don't see why it is such a difference? It seems the only valid question is the "opinion" of what is and is not notable- I do not see any comments about the actual article in question - if the information is bogus or not applicable or false then say so- but that's not the case is it, somebody always want's to shoot the messenger because of the message. Johnny 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)

Relisted[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentt Although the subjct matter "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon", is a documented subject in the Latter Day Saint Movement, this appears to be a new revelation, as such the article seems to fail to provide significat references that establishes it owns notability. Being about a notable subject does no confer nobility. It looks like a prmotion for a new religious text. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to seek a consensus as well - but what is it exactly you are hoping we'll all concede to? Unless I'm mistaken, the only applicable concern is the "opinion" of what is and is not "notable", or are there additional concerns that must be answered before someone at Wikipedia pulls the Deletion Notice or the article itself? The article on Notability; specifically about "Controversy" seems to directly apply here. I hope my earlier comments will not be brushed off but at this point what is it exactly that is needed to keep this article in place? Please define the specific requirements you feel I need to meet to keep this article in place- and please don't kill it with a long punch-list because we all know there are articles currently active and un-noticed that do not have the same amount of scrutiny being expected of this one, and they would fail. I personally would simply like the article left as it is and get on with life.
As for the comment above "It looks like a prmotion for a new religious text" I personally don't see how it is any different than the majority of "books" currently listed on Wikipedia- I took the format of this article after reviewing quite a few others- They all seem to try their best to not be biased - but whoever created the article to begin with created it because of how they felt about the subject- Honestly can you tell me how any of these articles would be here if someone didn't feel passionate about it? Why are their "critics" of this work; because some feel passionate "against" this and want to stop it- while others feel the passion "for" it. If neither of us existed Wiki would not exist there would simply be no interest and nothing "notable" could be defined - Everyone who writes here has a personal value associated for doing so, hopefully its that it brings a good service to others and makes them happy in doing so- Hope this helps, Thank you, Johnny 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)
Hi, MWAWWIKI. Generally, we determine whether or not a book is notable based on the criteria found at Wikipedia:Notability (books). As you can see, there are five main criteria. As far as I can tell, this book definitely does not meet points 2, 4 or 5.
User:Rvessels put forward a list of references/sources (see above, on this page) in order to try and show that this book meets point 1. Unfortunately, I don't think he was familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for what constitutes a "reliable source." You can see this page: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, for a guideline. If you have a list of independent, reliable sources that meet these guidelines and cover this book, please put them forward here (and try and integrate them into the article). That would help establish notability.
As for point 3, it states: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." It is possible that this book has made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement, I'm not sure and the article itself doesn't establish this. Maybe you can clear this up? The key point is 'notable.' If, for example, this specific book is widely used or is central to a notable religious parish, sect, movement or group (or what have you) that has its own Wikipedia page, that would most likely meet notability standards.
You're right that these guidelines aren't the final word. That is to say, there is controversy and debate around the notability standards and we can be flexible. However, please look at the "threshold standards" under WP:NBOOK. In general, books should be available in at least a dozen libraries and they should be catalogued by the Library of Congress. If User:Savonneuxis right that this book is only available in 3 libraries then this book definitely does not meet the bare minimum threshold standards.
You're also right that there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that cover non-notable topics and should probably be deleted. That isn't a valid argument for keeping other articles on non-notable topics though. There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia and many, unfortunately, go unnoticed. If you run across articles that you feel don't meet notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion or bring them to the attention of another editor. --MidnightDesert (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MidnightDesert - Thank you for your comments- they seem more constructive than destructive. There is a lot to read above and below with others references- I'd like to point out first that each of the authors books have had an LCN (Library of Congress Number) and I have gone to libraries in my area and am able to request a copy for my reading pleasure if they don't have one in house so to speak; so the "3 libraries" comment doesn't seem currently applicable. - When I read your comment "There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia and many, unfortunately, go unnoticed." I can't help but think how this article shouldn't be any different yet's its infamous notability has obviously struck a chord with some. I will take your suggestion to look for additional sources and attempt to integrate them into the article as applicable. Johnny 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Notability comment- The TSP's ISP shows their independent web-statistics for the month of May; that this book was downloaded 15,798 times. Johnny 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Webtraffic is barely a factor in WP:WEB and this isnt even a web content article, it's a published (albeit self published) book and books have to meet WP:NBOOK (which is a subset of WP:GNG).--Savonneux (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Thanks Savonneux, right you are about the WP:WEB and that this isn't a "web content article" I'll look at the WP:NBOOK here over the weekend - Johnny 23:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)


  • Comment This should not have been relisted. It does not meet wiki standards: "Being about a notable subject does no confer nobility." Another point in fact.Sealednot (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly rewrite - I agree with the many editors who have pointed out the non-notability and lack of reliable sources about this book. The book appears to be eminently non-notable. I couldn't find a single news article that discusses the book or the controversy associated with it. Christopher Nemelka does not appear in any news articles. HOWEVER, the concept of "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon" is notable. (See, for example, [51]) It is this particular book that claims to be "Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon" that is non-notable. Thus, it would be legitimate to have an article under this title that discusses the concept of "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon". The material from http://www.mormontimes.com/article/8643/studies/mormon%20q&a could form the basis for such an article. --Richard S (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe this book is notable enough to merit its own article at present. It might, however, be appropriate to merge some of its information into Golden_plates#"Sealed" portion if reliable sources can be found. Namely, it might be noteworthy to document that a man claims to have documented the sealed portion, which is published in this 2004 book. —Eustress talk 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "book" is completely non-notable. I live in Utah and I've never heard of it. It seems to be a complete fabrication. While Joseph Smith claimed that there was a section of the golden plates that he was not allowed to "translate", this isn't it (since, in my POV, there never were any golden plates). There isn't any notable "controversy" concerning this fabricated work. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does seem more like spam than anything else. It does not meet the standards of notability yet. Maybe in the future, but today, someone seems to be promoting their own soapbox. --StormRider 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being a "complete fabrication" neither gives notability nor precludes it. The Book of Mormon which is a notable book is considered a complete fabrication by most Christians. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a notable fabrication. Salamander letter is another notable fabrication. Notability is not equivalent with truth. However, notability has not been established for the "sealed portion...." Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the TLDR and canvassing, ultimately this is a case where the notability of books guidelines should be fulfilled. They aren't, nor do basic searches find reliable independent sources that are covering the book. The fact it's a work of fiction doesn't matter- many made-up books and religions are notable. Ultimately, what matters is that outside of the book's publicist and FAIR, apparently nobody cares. tedder (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate to be the only one against 7 delete: chances are my vote will be worthless. However, I would first flag the article with {{cn}} and {{dubious|verify}} and ask for scanned pages before bringing something to AfD. It seems like this has not been done. It's easy to delete, people, difficult to write articles. Now this book easily passes Wikipedia:Notability (books), so you are going against WP rules here. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're reading, but this book passes none of Wikipedia's book notability tests. --Taivo (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes point 1. And the fact that it's self-published is completely irrelevant. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notability criterion #1 - From Wikipedia:Notability (books), : The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial<ref name="nontrivial"/> published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,<ref name="independent"/> with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.<ref name="selfpromotion"/>

If the article provided even one reference to a published work that discussed the book (e.g. newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews), this discussion would be less one-sided. A quick Google search failed to turn up any such mentions either of the book or its author. Do you know something we don't? --Richard S (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this wouldn't count, then, delete it. My thoughts are that reviews are not easy to be done for a "general" audience if the target is a religious book. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[52] does sort of qualify as a reliable source although the title Salt Lake City Weekly sounds like it's one of those free alternative newspapers so the reliability is a bit suspect. Let's ignore that for now. It is at least the closest we've gotten in this discussion to a reliable source. However, it's hard to make a whole Wikipedia article from that one source. Are there any other sources? Recall that criterion #1 requires "multiple non-trivial published works". If there is as much controversy as is claimed, why has this not made the mainstream media? The book is not only an admitted fraud, it seems to be a non-notable fraud. There are many such frauds in the world. We can't have an article on every one of them. --Richard S (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SLC Weekly has its own Wiki article, which puts it a little closer to being a reliable source, at least: Salt Lake City Weekly. I still contend it doesn't matter if the book is a fraud or not- the same argument is still ongoing about the Book Of Mormon about 180 years after it was written. The main point is that it hasn't received much attention. The SLC Weekly article helps, it'd be good to see more. tedder (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need scanned pages - the entire text is available for download. Have you looked at it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't matter if the content is a fraud, but it does matter if the content of the websites that you are using to support the book's notability is fraudulent. The part that says members have been excommunicated for reading the book is fraudulent. Since that's based on fraudulent web site information, there are levels upon levels of fraud in the discussion of this book. --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tavio - you are speaking out of wishful thinking, ignorance or prejudice here but certainly not from your own investigation- the website is not fraudulent nor are the words therein - The burden of proof falls on you to backup your claims; "The part that says members have been excommunicated for reading the book is fraudulent." the comment "is fradulent" is unsubstantiated; interview them for yourself, like I and others have.
Those who claim it as fraud should be heard as to why they think it is, but the burden of proof is on them. Christopher's response to such alegations was made on the article in question, let it speak for itself- Johnny 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Jonnhy, your websites are not reliable sources and your "personal interviews" are original research so are not valid for Wikipedia's purposes. In other words, there is no reliable evidence that anyone has been excommunicated because of this book. This book fails every test of notability. --Taivo (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tavio, I thought we'd come to a mutual agreement above " "Thanks Savonneux, right you are about the WP:WEB and that this isn't a "web content article" " I got side-stepped with your comment about the excommunication. My effort is to write this Wiki Article about the book not the website(s) nor anyones personal stories - they may be a contributing factor as to why I wrote this article in the first place but I completely agree again - that this isn't a "web content article" nor any current discussion about it, so, with respect, how can your comments be used here? It was your web based comment "no reliable evidence" that brought it up to begin with- It also apears that a Sr. Editor;">Sulmues Let's talk has already stated this article does meet (Passes point 1.) criteria above also disagrees with your statement "This book fails every test of notability." - Thank you- --Johnny* Johnny 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (PS- I've used the 4 tildes since day one - User:Tedder is helping me correct that problem.)[reply]
Tavio, my apologies - I did not realize your comment about "excommunication" was from the actual Wiki Article - I thought you were referring to the book's home page (thesealedportion.com) I re-read the article and adjusted it accordingly: "Some former members who have accepted The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon claim to have been excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy." Thank you- JohnnyR (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell my name correctly. Just because Sulmues says that it meets the notability standard doesn't mean that it does. Sulmues is an editor just like the rest of us and he/she can be just as wrong as anyone else. The Wikipedia standard is substantial mention in "multiple reliable sources". There isn't any "multiple" here at all and the "reliable sources" aren't really reliable sources at all according to Wikipedia standards. The book fails all notability tests despite what Sulmues claims. And, by the way, my first edit on Wikipedia predates Sulmues' first edit by three years, so calling someone a "senior editor" really isn't appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I took no offense when you misspelled my name above- it was certainly not intentional :-) But I will try again as I always do, to not misspell it... again - dyslexia is not fun. To the subject at hand, I found 2 additional sources for information I thought applicable - The [| LDS] article by Bruce R. McConkie in the section I added: "LDS Viewpoints" may fail to meet the immediate notability requests yet will be important in establishing further notability of the topic and the actual book. The other, "Controversial Doctrines", was added because I found an article in the [American Chronicle] by another editor who has written quite a few articles of his own; [Christian Church] and I feel there will be many more like user:sacrednot and user:getrdone481 and others who could constructively, instead of abusively, add their actual references there. More to follow - Thank you, JohnnyR (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I misspelled your name to make the point that you were misspelling my name. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
So, you added two "references". The first was a blogger at American Chronicle, a site Wikipedia hasn't looked at very fondly (in other words, would probably not pass muster as a reliable source). And I can't find a link for the actual article you imply was written at American Chronicle, though that's sort of a moot point. The second "reference" is a quote from some higher-up in the Mormon church that doesn't even mention the book or the author in any way. These are not reliable sources. These do not help prove notability of the book in Wikipedia's terms. A review in a reliable historical journal or the New York Times would, but mentions on blogs or advertising by the publicist don't help at all. tedder (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Added Civil Court information - Christopher Nemelka vs. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, et. al, Civil Case No. 070910537, filed in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah. (July 2007) which is specific to the book, it's author and contents. JohnnyR (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor civil suit for defamation regarding something the Church said about the book still doesn't make it notable. The whole article is nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion. There is still zero evidence that this book passes Wikipedia's notability test. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me agree here- it's a primary source that doesn't include any legal outcome. I could sue Taivo, but that wouldn't make me notable. tedder (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* My turn... Let me dis agree here- This notable lawsuit was brought against two "Apostles" , some of the highest ranking officials of the LDS church Jeffery_R._Holland and M._Russell_Ballard and another "notable person" Hyrum_W._Smith all three of which Wikipedia says are notable enough to merit their own pages - yet the court judge acknowledged the evidence of defamation against the book author From These Three Men! His claims concerning the Sealed Portion were sufficient to go to trial - yet that was denied by the self same judge granting "immunity". This you say is not notable and "nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion"? Amazing how the point of having articles published in Wikipedia - "to bring a quick encyclopedic reference with the intent to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources" is missed. I and a few others here have shown that this BOOK is notable and verifiable and worth keeping around for future references to further prove its validity or as some have slandered it as a fraud. Taivo presumes to know my motives for even beginning this article in the first place and accuses it of "nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion" I could do the same for the large egos here; Taivo writes "I misspelled your name to make the point that you were misspelling my name" mine was accidental - his; intentional, so how is that constructive? Again it goes to show there are very few non Wikipediholics interested in seeing this article improved instead of deleted.
So I guess this process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out. I feel it is notable and getting more so with each passing day. The well known Salt_Lake_City_Cemetery here in Utah on June 16th is having a notable event about the book and the author with the press invited to attend- no, the NYTimes is not coming - over time I hope this article will continue to grow in complete neutrality with added articles that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is never going to happen while the article creators are nit-picked[2] instead of offering up ways to improve the article.
I have to laugh about two of the people (Non-Wiki Editors) who follow this article - user:getterdone481 & [| SealedNot] both monitor everything they can find to destroy anything to do with this book or it's author (Yet never reveal their real names)- they constantly write about it or have their own agendas for making sure this becomes un-notable to the world- oviously it is notable enough for them to comment consistently in the negative about it - I'll bet they've never even commented on a Wiki Article before this one! Bring this article into the light and let them post their views and opinions as well, don't hide them - welcome them! I'm sure there are many more out there as well. But there are also others like myself who read the book and were deeply impressed by it - so much so that I enquired about it and seek to find out more about it and because none of you nor I know everything, created this article as an additional point of reference that the public can contribute their findings to as well. I urge you to allow this article to grow like others have - not a one of which got where it is today by a lack of contributors- Let this article stand on it's own merits and within a reasonable amount of time if no one has actually contributed to it then you'd be very justified in doing what you want to do - the same thing User:RHaworth wanted to do the moment he saw it; "Get real man - all I have done is moves to get the article deleted"
I personally don't care if you like or hate the article and never read the book or think it's fantastic- the fact is; it is notable in and of itself, if for no other reason than the entire LDS Church is expectedly looking for the book- yet completely miss the marc entirely. Best intentions JohnnyR (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the preceding comments, there already is a consensus--to delete the article. There are only two of you that voiced any support. The court case just isn't enough. Wikipedia's standards are non-trivial references to a book in "multiple reliable sources". That standard just hasn't been met here. There are lawsuits filed every day against notable persons, but that doesn't make the plaintiff notable. Notability isn't like a virus, you don't catch it by contact with notability. Each item must stand on its own notability--it doesn't rub off. --Taivo (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus of a few editors is pleasantly confined to those few, while thousands, ultimately millions, across the globe do in fact and deed catch the books notability in real personal ways every day. People from all over the world continue to discover and read the book on and off-line and much like a virus it is spreading to every part of the planet. Even as those searching the internet for the book may not find a reliable source of information at Wikipedia, the book will continue to seize eminence in spite of a minute consensus. JohnnyR (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When and if "millions" drink the Kool-Aid, then Wikipedia's notability requirements might be met. Wikipedia is a reporter of facts, not a predictor, and certainly not a platform for a personal sales pitch. --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facts - yup the never-changing yet ever-changing Facts; Facts by consent of notability do not a true statement make. Facts do not often enough tell the real truth and are as flexible as the common consensus of the current day, to which I'm sure you'd have been first in line to agree, that the Earth was Flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Truth_by_consensus does not make it true anymore than truth by deletion or ignorance makes it false. Millions now drink the Kool-Aid of Wikipedia - by admissions from above many articles shouldn't exist, and yet they do; many more to come and many more to go all permitted or denied by personal platforms & sales pitches from Wikipedia reporters of "facts" be they notably approved for or notably against the article of the current day. JohnnyR (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about truth. See WP:TRUTH and WP:V. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for original ideas. Articles are kept or deleted based on consensus, usually regarding their fit to an encyclopedia of information that is verifiable and found in reliable sources. Please don't turn this into a discussion about what reliable sources are and what truth is. There are avenues for that. Again, wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a vehicle to advertise a non-notable book that is trying to churn the waters with no response from the other party. tedder (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Anarchists[edit]

Norwich Anarchists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local political group, referenced only to their own website. I cannot find any sign of the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability per WP:N.

I am surprised to see that this article has existed for nearly 5 years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Mikovits[edit]

Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy nominee, but appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per first reference in Discover. How does this not pass WP:BIO, particularly "received a notable award or honor"? Changing to delete. She's obviously producing notable findings. I don't think she's quite there yet. Her recent work (Chicago Tribune) looks like it might become significant, but isn't yet. Her award isn't quite significant. Her findings themselves seem to pass WP:GNG, but she doesn't inherit notability from them; her findings would have to far surpass GNG for her to be notable.merge seems like the best solution, as stated below by better commentors. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Being author of a paper that was number 55 on a list of 100 top stories of 2009 in Discover (magazine) is not a 'notable award or honor'. Even making number 1 would be only one event. Web of Science gives an h-index of 18 for "Mikovits J*", which doesn't seem particularly special for a molecular biologist who's been publishing for 20 years, so I don't think it's enough by itself to pass WP:ACADEMIC #1. The institute at which she's director of research appears to be very small: a research team of 7, including 3 grad students. --Qwfp (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of hits at Google Scholar, and while the ranking by Discover magazine isn't the Nobel Prize, it ain't hay either. I say she's notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mark as a stub and retain. The New York Times link is pay-to-play and should be changed to a standard hardcopy internal footnote. Notable scientific researcher. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsure Merge to XMRV. Mikovits and her findings (even though doubted by many scientists) featured in the Chicago Tribune on 2010-06-07 (see here).--A bit iffy (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article still relates to the same one event that was highlighted by Discover magazine, i.e. her Science paper in Oct 2009 about the XMRV virus. I can't see the need for a separate article on one of the authors. Qwfp (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, though isn't Mikovits similar to Andrew Wakefield who also became notable through one event - a publication of his and colleagues' findings? --A bit iffy (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:BLP1E, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." I think that's the case for Andrew Wakefield, where there's clearly substantial overlap with "MMR vaccine controversy", but there's separate material in each as well, and both articles are fairly long. "Judy Mikovits" is a four-sentence stub, and the material in the first two sentences would fit in XMRV. The remaining two sentences lifted from her bio aren't of much interest if she remains a relatively low-profile individual. Re-reading WP:BLP1E, i see it says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. .... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Changing my !vote to Merge to XMRV. Qwfp (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay then, I agree.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis McInerney[edit]

Francis McInerney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unreferenced BLP, for which I cannot find any reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on people, don't be shy :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Sourcing is limited to isolated mentions and material from companies he's involved in. The best I can find is [53], but that looks like a blog. Being director of a company we don't even have an article on doesn't confer notability either. The original version of the article looks identical to his Amazon biography at [54] so there may be copyright issues as well. Hut 8.5 15:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of the Academy[edit]

Gallery of the Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dab page for only two entries, hatnote should be used. —fetch·comms 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That would be a standard editing procedure. You don't need AfD for it. If "Gallery of the Academy" is a possible search term, then it should not be deleted anyway, but at least be a redirect. Ty 02:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? We can't redirect to both pages, so which would you propose redirecting to? —fetch·comms 20:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, if there is a primary topic, then that is where the page can redirect. The notion of deleting the page is fundamentally flawed, as without it, a reader searching for the term would get a nil result, as neither of the two articles on the disambig page has the same name as the disambig page. If there is not a primary topic, then the best and easiest solution is simply to leave the page alone. It's not doing any harm and could do some good. Ty 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Jacobite consorts[edit]

Gallery of Jacobite consorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. —fetch·comms 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it can be expanded into an article with the existing content as part of it, or else merge into Jacobite succession. Ty 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it relates to Jacobite succession and is valuable, merge if needs be...Modernist (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge it was created in the same manner of Gallery of Jacobite pretenders which was recently merged to Jacobite succession. I want to really know about others' opinion on these consorts' importance because I'm in a little doubtful about their actual importance. It seem foolish to mention a list of women/men who were titular consorts of pretenders. The role of consort is already near to nothing in an actual monarchy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their political importance may or may not have been great, but the consideration for wikipedia is meeting WP:N, which presumably they do. It is part of the fabric of history. Ty 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't merge and delete. It has to be merge and redirect for GFDL continuity. Ty 22:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, my mistake. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of curves[edit]

Gallery of curves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, could be merged into List of curves or copied to Commons. —fetch·comms 01:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you think it could be merged, then that is an argument for keeping the material, but merely putting it somewhere else (and redirecting), so you shouldn't nom it for AfD. Ty 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be merged, but I'm just saying that's an option for any inclusionists who might happen across this. It's not mergeable as is--galleries are discouraged per the MOS--but if this is deleted (which is the option I prefer), a selection of appropriate images can be added to the list article as seen fit. In any case, there is no reason why AfD cannot be a discussion area like TfD, RfD, CfD, etc. —fetch·comms 20:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionists, as in including valid and useful encyclopedic information in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia:Image use policy allows galleries. Per WP:IG: "the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia". This would seem in its entirety to be valid in e.g. Curves, which shows scant examples at present. You say, "but if this is deleted (which is the option I prefer), a selection of appropriate images can be added to the list article" That is contradictory. Deletion is for material which should not be on wikipedia. If you are adding material from one article to another, as you suggest, it is a merge and should have a redirect to maintain GFDL integrity. I see no reason to remove all these diagrams of curves from wikipedia. That's not just deletionism, it's destructionism. Ty 23:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misuse of AfD to use it as "a discussion area". That should be done on the article talk page, WikiProjects etc. Ty 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion, as it is redundant with Category:Images of curves. Btyner (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (original creator I might add)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. The systems work in different ways and are both/and, not either/or. See also the problems with relying on categories: Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. Ty 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and Category:Images of curves is less direct because it provides links to the image pages, whereas the gallery provides an immediate link to the article about each crve. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the current List of curves would benefit enormously from a layout that included images, and that is clearly something to consider. However, Gallery of curves does seem strange as a standalone list, and clearly something should be done with it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem to be a sensible merge, so that anyone looking at List of curves could get some idea of what the curves were like without having to click each article link individually. Ty 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTREPOSITORY does not apply because this is not a gallery of random pictures - we have an article about each of these curves. No other good reason has been given for deletion. Category:Images of curves is not equivalent because it provides links to the image pages, not to the articles. Merger into list of curves is an option, but is not a simple copy-and-paste exercise, so would take some time to get it right. But that idea requires a separate discussion - AfD is not the right place to propose a merger. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think I would vote to hold off on deletion as well, per Gandalf. I'm going to post a proposal over at WT:WPM to see if there is any interest in revising List of curves. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gandalf61. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for the time being, pending the result of the WT:WPM or any other proposal. These things should be raised with relevant editors and WikiProjects in the first instance, rather than immediate recourse to AfD. Ty 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues[edit]

Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jminthorne (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will be a new article related to patent disclaimers, which is of general interest. After 2 hours it is hardly appropriate to delete articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Discuss back on the talk page of Jacobsen_v._Katzer. This article is a fork of Jacobsen_v._Katzer#Patent_claims after similar content was not allowed back in the main article. These changes from the JvK article should be discussed there, and if there is no consensus to include them, they should not be included. Certainly creating a new article because of that is not warranted and is non-neutral. If Wonkawonka wishes to contribute to a general interest article on patent disclaimers, we have Disclaimer (patent) already, where his contributions would be welcomed. Using this article for that purpose, given the title and focus on one case, is not appropriate. ArakunemTalk 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and discuss at Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer to reach a consensus on what, if any, content should be merged into that article; at which point the userfied version should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will be modified to talk about Disclaimers (the disclaimer you cite is only the EPO, and not relevant to this article when it is completed) as it relates to Subject Matter Jurisdiction as it relates to prevailing parties under U.S. law. When the article is completed, should take 1-2 months, we should discuss merging it into another forum if appropriate. Until completed it does not seem appropriate to jump to conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was going to copy your comment on the article here, but I see you have already made a similar one. Regards. Jminthorne (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the title the article currently has, it will be very misleading to expand the scope beyond that single case. See WP:COATRACK for the guidelines on that kind of thing. You'd probably be better off working on the draft in your userspace until it is ready, rather than leave it in this current state which is mostly a copy of a section from the main case article. ArakunemTalk 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discuss per Arakunem. A clear POV fork and salvageable content should be discussed before merging. ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend deletion. Article is a fork of disputed POV from the Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jacobsen v. Katzer is itself suffering from severe problems with POV, see Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer. The authors and editors of article under discussion are accounts that have only made contributions to this article and the original Jacobsen v Katzer article. There is evidence of sock- and meat-puppetry in both articles. This includes the WonkaWonka account, which was "JMRIadvocate" until a name change after the owner of the JMRI trademark objected. Further, the article content is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is predominantly opinion. Some of the legal opinions expressed have no grounding in fact or law. Several quote to e.g. the MPEP misrepresent content and case law. This was disputed on the Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer talk page. Changes were made there, but multiple undo's by the editors of this page and redo's by their authors ensued. This page was created shortly after. That lends credence to this page being a fork due to inability to get opinion on another Wikipedia page Hstimson (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content is being modified, as indicated, to a full article. Updating the title is a good idea too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Wedig[edit]

William Wedig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability shown for this (auto?)bio. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one of his films has gotten a significant no. of IMDb votes (Rise of the Dead) and that one got a terrible rating (3.4). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a few references to the article. It seems that his film, Forged, is a pretty big deal in the independent film market, which is understandable, considering the actors starring in it. From that and the other things that he has worked on, he appears notable to me. SilverserenC 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RooTooth[edit]

RooTooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, simply not notable. I considered tagging this as db-spam, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, try WP:PROD first for deleting articles that people are unlikely to care about. -- intgr [talk] 16:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, I will do as I please and take action as I see fit. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertisement. All coverage is in passing, mainly reviews of Roomba with a one-sentence mention.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 14 days without commentary. The article has never been prodded, so please treat as a contested prod if anyone wants this restored. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transportes Rápidos de Veracruz[edit]

Transportes Rápidos de Veracruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus company in Veracruz, Mexico. Outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can't find any significant coverage. MidnightDesert (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Gillies[edit]

Donny Gillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography, probably autobio., written in unencyclopedic tone with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources listed above. Searching for 'Dirty Donny' turns up some more, including the customary Juxtapoz article usual for artists of this ilk [55].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per preceding keep statements. Ty 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Transportes Miradores Del Mar[edit]

Auto-Transportes Miradores Del Mar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus company in Mexico. Vast majority of search hits are for Wikipedia mirrors plus 1 or 2 passing mentions on Spanish websites related to route listings and the such. MidnightDesert (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transportes Moctezuma de la Laguna[edit]

Transportes Moctezuma de la Laguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable transport company in Mexico. No significant coverage. Most search hits are Wikipedia mirrors, I only found one passing mention on a Mexican website. No claims to notability asserted. MidnightDesert (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. —fetch·comms 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was from 2007... —fetch·comms 00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inadequate reason for deletion. 80.84.55.209 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an invaluable art historical resource, a legitimate expansion of this aspect of Sistine Chapel Ceiling per WP:SUMMARY. It is not merely a collection of images but a well-constructed article with commentary. Of necessity it incorporates many images. Images are another (and in this case highly desirable) way of communicating information. If, instead of the images, each one was replaced by text describing it as fully and closely as possible, there would be no notion of deleting the article. It is obviously far better to show the image than attempt the (impossible and ludicrous) description of it in words. There seems to be a widespread devaluation of the image in favour of text on wikipedia. There needs to be a rethink of this attitude. Ty 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why this cannot provide the same encyclopedic value on Commons, whose scope is to host only educational material. —fetch·comms 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning there is no need to have any images at all on Wikipedia. Anyone wanting them can be referred to Commons. Your nom cited WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The relevant part of that (#4) says: "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". This is not a mere collection. It is a structured article and it does not have "no text". It is carefully annotated. Therefore the nom is invalid. Ty 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS which idiot put this in Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)!! Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, but I've changed it to category F, "fiction and the arts". Whether it meets the first definition can be debated, but I trust the nom will agree it meets the second. Ty 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essential, valuable resource, an important accompaniment to the articles on the Sistine Chapel and Michelangelo, especially this article Sistine Chapel ceiling...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. One of the very few works in western art of such ambitious scope, grand achievement, and popular recognition that merits such coverage. JNW (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The reason that the pictures have been placed in a separate gallery is simply because the parent article is already long. Ideally, all the idividual sections should be illustrated within the main.
While the pics are indeed all lodged in Wikimedia Commons, this gallery has the advantages of being easy to view, and not containing extraneous images. It is clearly ordered.
If this were to be slightly reformatted and renamed "List of Michelangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel", we would not be holding this discussion.
Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons as a gallery page. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't address the keep arguments. WP:NOTREPOSITORY #4 says, "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". Therefore this is not just a "photo gallery" per your statement. It has text and it has an encyclopedic context. I think your wanting to remove this from Wikipedia is potentially very harmful. Anyone in academia or just the average person in the street would consider this article to be a worthwhile part of an encyclopedia. Ty 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serves as an excellent and usefully-organised supplement to the main article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY doesn't apply here at all, since the article is hardly a "mere collection" lacking text. I agree with Amadajm that if the article were called a "List", it never would have been nominated for deletion. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The included summaries of the imagery are encyclopedic enough in nature to justify saving it, provided these summaries are referenced enough. --Dlrohrer2003 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very worthy article. Keep. Of course, keep.Sargentprivate (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fajr-2[edit]

Fajr-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reference did not find any for the "Fajr-2", There are multiple references for Fajr-3, 4 & 5. Fails WP:N & WP:V, article has been tagged as unreferenced since September 2006 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there is a "Fajr family of rockets" , then redirect there. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Kila[edit]

100 Kila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable sources independent of the subject. The page says that he has released two albums but they are not named and I have not been able to identify them to see if they meet the requirements for WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps someone more familiar with Bulgarian hip hop can find a source? J04n(talk page) 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VoltDB[edit]

VoltDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no indication of the topic's importance. Possibly some google hits but hard to find third-party, non-trivial coverage; also, no third-party non-trivial coverage included in the article. This article, based on its "3 days ago" release and the three links (twitter, blog, official website) smells an awful lot like WP:ADVERT. It may be notable, but there are no links here to prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Joe Chill's refs. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it's becaming very popular now among NoSQL movement. --93.191.72.229 (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment popularity does not equate to notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data processing architecture for e-discovery[edit]

Data processing architecture for e-discovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't exactly figure out the topic of this article. It seems to be a how-to guide for some sort of metadata processing, but I can't see this as a valid encyclopedia article. The page should have been speedied soon after creation, since the only significant contributor blanked it; however, a bot misinterpreted the blanking as vandalism, and it's been significantly edited by others since that time. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigal Cohen[edit]

Sigal Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable according to Wikipedia policy on notability WP:ENT. (note: don't be led astray by "number of Google results". Thousands of people called "Sigal Cohen" live in Israel.) Nikonmer (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD nomination is made by a "new" editor whose first edit was this nomination for deletion. Moorsmur (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sigal Cohen is a notable Israel model who has been the cover girl for many magazines including these ones [63] [64] [65] [66] that I found online. Moorsmur (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "cover girl" is by no means a proof of notability. See WP:N.--Maashatra11 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the article I get the impression she's a person doing a job. I can't see any particular notability in this person doing this job. The one reference merely establishes that she exists. It contains the statement about the most perfect body - but doesn't do any more to prove it or to say who chose her from the rest of the chosen people. Is modelling swimsuits for a retailer of budget clothing anything special? Peridon (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't able to locate any coverage in reliable secondary sources nor any indication of a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following". Perhaps over time this will change, but currently I couldn't find any press coverage. Eudemis (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable israeli model.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an argument. see WP:ITSNOTABLE.--Maashatra11 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per User:Peridon. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable, by model standards of notability, from being on the cover of the magazines listed by Moorsmur, and probably others out there. The article list all the notable people she has modeled for as well. Dream Focus 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the "model standards of notability"? I searched throughout the site and didn't find any criteria matching "being on a magazine cover" P.s. no sources are provided for the "notable people she has modeled for". Maybe you can find sources for these claims? --Maashatra11 (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Sound 2009 Annual[edit]

Ministry of Sound 2009 Annual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba (Talk) 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet Nayyar[edit]

Vineet Nayyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chairmain of Mahindra Satyam. PROD refused, but all the other officers have been speedy tagged. Bringing them here. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of notability, the article is in violation of our copyright policy and will need to be deleted or rewritten, unless permission is verified, as it has been copied from http://www.nitorsolutions.com/corporate/boardmembers.asp. It has been accordingly blanked and listed at the copyright problems board, as the contributor has been advised how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no violations here. whatever info we are updating, it's accurate and can be found on www.mahindrasatyam.com . allow this info to stay on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msatwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily closed as moot. I have redirected this to the newly created article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Since the text here was a public domain source text from the US government, a small portion of the actual regulations, I see no urgent need to erase its history or to keep this open. Kudos to User:TJRC for making a proper article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations[edit]

Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, this might be speedy able but not too sure. I really don't think we are in the habit of writing or in this case copying and pasting so we have law information if I'm wrong I welcome another experienced editor to close. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With extreme predjudice (by which I mean fast, not salty). WP:NOTREPOSITORY Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. --Savonneux (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and completely rewrite into an encyclopedia article. Several of the Code of Federal Regulations titles have articles; but they should be a discussion of the main points and their implications, not a mirror of what the law says. If no one wants to rewrite, change to a redirect with possibilities. Incidentally, the page should probably be moved to Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations to match the precept we've set up for many of the other titles. Jminthorne (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That isnt even the entire Title 15 CFR which is wayyy longer, see here. Also no one even tried to write it, it's copy pasta. It can be recreated when someone is going to try to make an article out of it.--Savonneux (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Redirect to newly created article about the topic per TJRC (talk · contribs). Jminthorne (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a copy paste of federal regulations. I agree with the above, it can be recreated later if someone wants to write an actual article. JIP | Talk 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete recommendations above. This is just one small excerpt from a title of the CFR. I can understand wanting to write an article about the legal requirements relating to toy guns but not just copying regulations in full. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. This is but a small portion of the extensive text of the federal regulations under Title 15.[67] The entire title probably would easily support an encyclopedia article containing an overview of its contents. This source text is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP Gurnani[edit]

CP Gurnani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio... this is the CEO. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He has had good coverage in Indian financial media. Keep this one but delete all other Mahindra Satyam executive articles spoke too soon, i am going through them one by one.. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really depends on if news sources can be dug up on them. I don't think it's right to say that anyone else in the company that has an article is non-notable unless they are individually looked at, which is what the nomination seems to be insinuating. SilverserenC 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I use Twinkle and it doesn't XFD multiple articles at once, or I'd have put them all in one. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba (Talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A S Murty[edit]

A S Murty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedied, but is the CTO of a notable(?) corporation, Mahindra Satyam. I don't feel comfortable deleting this without AFD support. delete' UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of notability, the article is in violation of our copyright policy and will need to be deleted or rewritten, unless permission is verified, as it has been copied from http://www.nitorsolutions.com/corporate/boardmembers.asp. It has been accordingly blanked and listed at the copyright problems board, as the contributor has been advised how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crazy Anglos. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bozeman[edit]

Bryan Bozeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject nor either of his bands seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO, can find no significant independent coverage of the artist. J04n(talk page) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renmark Rovers FC[edit]

Renmark Rovers FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews [68]. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level amateur league in South Australia. it is not like the Australian Football League or VFL. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of sources available for editors who wish to put more effort in than a desultory google search. Contrary to the unsupported claims of the nominator, the Riverland Football League, while not in the top level of the Australian rules football pyramid (as far as one exists in Australian rules) is by no means amateur - with some players and coaches paid reasonable sums. It goes without saying that the article needs tidying up but that is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please provide sources then. nothing appears from a gnews search, this is the support to my claim. it is not a total professional league. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Offended Yet?[edit]

Are You Offended Yet? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- or merge if wanted, not notable demo album. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:HAMMER is not policy, it's an observation that if the name/track order if an upcomming album is not known, then the article is likely to be deleted per other policies/guidelines such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. However, when nominating or discussing the deletion of an article, you should base your arguments on the actual policies or guidelines that may apply. In this case the consensus is that the article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL but it may be weak in the WP:NALBUMS department. However, in general there is no consensus to delete this article. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libra Scale[edit]

Libra Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

violates WP:HAMMER Adabow (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reliable sources that provide both the album title and the release date, including Ne-Yo's official site. The single "Beautiful Monster" which is taken from the album has already premiered. So the article as it stands is not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. As for WP:NALBUM it does already have significant independent coverage in reliable sources and this is only going to increase. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title and release date do not make it worthy of an article yet. As per WP:NALBUMS " Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." So far, all we have from reliable sources is title, date, and one track, sometimes two. That's at most two sentences in the artist's article. If WP:NALBUMS says Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article applies to songs, I don't see why it shouldn't apply for unreleased albums as well.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not yet noteable. It does not have enough coverage in RS. WP:CRYSTAL. Keep I took a second look at the article and I took another look at the sources and yea it is noteable. STAT -Verse 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to quote policy such as WP:CRYSTAL then please state where the article is in violation of such policy. There is nothing in the article that isn't backed up by many verifiable and reliable sources, several of which are cited in the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several sources confirming its release. Str8cash (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although a title and date are confirmed, a track list and cover art should be included. (WP:TPHL)Adabow (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be good but this has absolutely nothing to do with deletion policy! Jdrewitt (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a confirmed release date. Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:HAMMER doesn't apply here as the name of the album is known, as well as other verifiable information. Further, writing "Violating WP:HAMMER" is in itself a wrong statement; User:TenPoundHammer's Law is neither a policy nor a guideline, but merely a personal essay reflecting a personal opinion which has to be taken with discretion. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure request I request this AfD be closed by virtue of the fact the original nomination was ill-conceived and fundamentally flawed being based solely on an essay without any consideration of actual wikipedia policy. Users above have shown the article satisfies WP:Notability and WP:RS. Any further discussion on what the article should and should not contain should conducted on the article talk page, not here.Jdrewitt (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thisara Imbulana[edit]

  • Delete Person who represent on the article is not notable.looks self promotional construction. . I suggest to delete this article.--Wipeouting (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thisara Imbulana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ www.ejil.org
  2. ^ User:RHaworth "Get real man - all I have done is moves to get the article deleted"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_3&oldid=1142640914"