Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 4

< 3 June	5 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Daywalker. as per nominator and consensus (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daywalkers[edit]

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

~~Delete as non-notable term, author removed PROD and a PROD2. Article appears to be about a term used in Marvel comic and a South Park episode. Bramble claw x 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Daywalker. Bramble claw x 17:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a term used in vampire fiction to describe vampires that go out in daylight without protection; South Park was being satirical in its usage of the term. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Explain term in an article on vampires or vampire terms.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daywalker. 92.1.90.14 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daywalker. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daywalker, as suggested. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to existing dab page at Daywalker no need for separate article at plural. PamD (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plural of Daywalker. Airplaneman ✈ 15:06, 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk[edit]

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

The notability of this internet talk show was in doubt in the last two AfDs, but now that it is in "indefinite hiatus", the likelihood that we can get this article to be encyclopedic is dubious at best. Self-published websites are our only references and independent notice from people outside the niche-field of paranormal speculation is not forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Coast to Coast AM comes close to being a reliable source, at least for the existance of a ~~radio show~~ internet talk show, that is not enough to establish notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I gave in the 2nd AfD. Deor (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in-depth independent coverage in decent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The authors claim they have added reliable sources, but all of the six external links point to websites regarding shows that the producers of the show have appeared on - one doesn't even have anything on the page, reading "SCHEDULE TO BE POSTED SOON". The only other source seems to be a very narrowly-aimed newsletter. I hardly think these are reliable sources, as is stated by a major contributor in the second AfD."Hello, we have added reliable sources to the "External links" section of the Ghostly Talk article." he says. Also, I am suspicious that the article was mainly created by people who are associated with the podcast, as words like "we" suggest. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These guys apparently never even made an impact in the niche pop culture they were catering to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1S1K[edit]

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

I found zero reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if sources were provided it would just be a slogan. Mention in sniper, at most. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't take long to see what this is actually about. The article's premise is that it stands for "One shot, one kill" (which redirects to sniper) and (by the way), it's also a prefix used by gaming clans, and (by the way), "One of these clans 1S1K CLAN [1] was started in 2004 and is still in existence today with several of its core members from the original clan in '04:" (1S1K-names of core members listed, and [1] being the link to the 1S1K CLAN website. Like Joe, I can't find any notability for the abbreviation. It's fairly clear to me that it's not used by snipers [1], except for the pretend kind. Mandsford 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims to regard a popular gaming phrase, however all that Google turns up is several fan pages of a gaming clan, rather than about the phrase. The article then only seems to list a number of people who're in a gaming clan - I don't think that's particularly encyclopedic. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:06, 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 Withdrawn. I'm convinced of notability. Especially because of the Honored Member section. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Dapcevich[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this mayor. The notability guidelines for politicians says "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." The key word is likely. It doesn't say always. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Five reliable sources have been provided to the article showing this individual was the mayor of Sitka. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a mayor doesn't equal automatic notability. All of the sources are local news. I'm not saying that local news can't show notability, I'm saying that every single politician gets local news. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all good faith, it meaning the citations get better. I'd recommend going with the close as I just doing the first page of Google ghits and saving the best for last. However the next citation will be pretty good as it's a US mayors' Kyoto accord. ----moreno oso (talk) 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Hendawi[edit]

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

Alleged to have been a member of a notable organisation. That's not just WP:NOTINHERITED, it's WP:NOTALLEGEDINHERITED. Nothing in the article suggests this person is notable. Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this person is notable. nableezy - 16:25, 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel al-Bora'i[edit]

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

Alleged to have been a member of a notable organisation. And he owned a shop. That's not notable. Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete KITTENS alert. Back in April, somebody thought it would be a good idea to write lots of little articles [2], many of which say that someone is an "alleged" member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and all these allegations are being made on people in the created Template:Al-Jihad. Notwithstanding the obvious WP:BLP concerns, these all seem to be sourced to the same 2004 book (El-Zayyat, Montasser, "The Road to al-Qaeda", 2004. tr. by Ahmed Fakry) that can't be verified, and there's no other indication of individual notability. Not sure how many articles we have about people who are "allegedly" members of a group that has been labelled as terrorists, but I see all sorts of problem. Mandsford 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this person is notable. I am an alleged member of the Communist Party, I am not a notable person. nableezy - 16:25, 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. JForget 22:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Moffet[edit]

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

Otherwise non-notable individual "notable" only for his death. WP:BIO1E clearly covers this. Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose His death has received significant press coverage, and it has raised some political questions e.g. has the UVF fully disarmed as it has claimed, and what about Dawn Purvis? PatGallacher (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but is Moffet notable? All of that information can be included in other articles, eg the articles on the UVF and Dawn Purvis. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E. Edison (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very pointless, one-hit wonder material and is similar to Elizabeth Lambert for soccer Talladega87 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SINGLEEVENT ... although "one-hit wonder" might have been better expressed! WWGB (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. However, I would be happy to see an article regarding the shooting, rather than the victim. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a news source. Might be worth a mention in any article that covers post-Good Friday violence. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable only for being killed. Manormadman (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is only notable for being killed. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (pending better arguments to the contrary) or rename to Murder of Bobby Moffet (as per suggestion by WackyWace ^{talk to me, people}). I don't deny Moffet became notable for being killed. However Murder of Robert McCartney and Brendan Burke have shown that that is not a disqualifier. The Belfast Telegraph reported extensively on Moffet's death, so evidently that occurrence has some importance, at least, in loyalist circles in Belfast. Otherwise please explain how Burke and McCartney disambiguate from Moffet in this regard. [email protected] (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing one article to another is generally a bad way of proving notability on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, to look at the two examples you picked, one person's murder made the national news, and the other person had a good claim to notability before his death. That doesn't completely preclude the notability of a murder that only receives local coverage, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable person - merely a footsoldier in a paramilitary organisation and killed by its leadership. Is every paramilitary/ex-paramilitary in N. Ireland going to have their own page? And I beleive his name was "Moffett". Billsmith60 (talk) 19:46, 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 WP:SNOW (a non-admin close). However whatever (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)]][reply]

Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game[edit]

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

If this article is allowed to stay, what about the countless other no-hitters that ended up one-hitters due to an umpire or official scorer? Had Johnny Vander Meer not been the victim of a questionable call, he would have had three consecutive no-hitters, to give one example. Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk | contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event has achieved significant coverage, particularly outside of the sports world. It's not unusual for a sports controversy or a notable play to have its own article. For an event like this, it has been discussed in many different contexts - the historic possibilities of the perfect game, the implications for instant replay, and the sportsmanship involved. The information needed to sufficiently cover this event would probably be too much to include in either Jim Joyce's or Armando Galarraga's article, so I support there being a separate article to cover the subject. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instant Lore - This should stay because it has become an instant MLB lore and will be discussed for a long time, I don't want this to end up like the 4th and 2, which is no longer had it's own artictle, eventhough it had effects on the Patriots season. Final answer, should stay permanet. Talladega87 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game has received national media attention and calls from politicians to overturn the ruling. [3] The article is well sourced and encyclopedic. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is unique and different from other near-perfect games in the way that it ended, with the questionable call at the base. Just about every other game in which the pitcher got the first 26 outs has ended as either a perfect game or with a clean hit (Maybe Milt Pappas' game could be an exception, but an article could be made on that game too). I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4 in that the game is notable based on the implications of possibly expanding instant replay. Frank Anchor^Talk 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the unique circumstances of this game, it is more notable than the other two perfect games that occurred this year. I don't think this article opens the door for other "just-missed" games since the uniqueness of this event will probably never happen again. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Armando Galarraga nearly became the 21st pitcher in Major League history to throw a perfect game." But he DIDN'T. And becoming the 21st would have been of dubious notability anyway. Controversy surrounding the decision by the umpire? Under the current rules, the umpire decides. Period. I DO think the keeping of this article would open many doors for near-whatever things in everything down to the Knurdling Championship of Rutland. It may be (wiki) news, but notable on Wikipedia? I say no. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant event in baseball history, and will become especially so if it leads to replay being used in MLB. The extreme news coverage of the event and the existence of articles on other notable plays and games seem to make this a clear keep. walkie (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. It hasn't had that effect yet. When it does (if it does...), it may merit an article. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now, at least. By this time next year, it can probably be tucked into the main article on Armando. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually a simple delete, but with almost everyone from the umpire himself to the Indians thinking the call was wrong and all of the media attention, and it was not only a final out situation and may lead to more challenges and replay situations in baseball this definitely is a very unique case. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super-dooper Keep, but re-name It's already become baseball lore, though I think it could use a new page title. --Raderick (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest "The 28-hitter Perfect Game"? It's already been used by a bunch of pundits. --Raderick (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that name is supposed to mean, but in any case, it strongly violates WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. The article's name is fine. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Within minutes of the game ending, it was solidified as one of the most controversial games in MLB history. It is a well written and sourced article (although there's a disproportionate amount of ESPN sources). As far as renaming the article, I think the current non-colloquial title is very befitting. As with all new articles, it needs some work, and it's very important that the article stays away from speculative information about "what could happen" because of the game. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fairness to the nominator, who appears to be a baseball fan, Harvey Haddix's game is in his own article, and none of the perfect games in MLB history have their own separate article. Still, what the hell, at the moment, people want to consult Wikipedia to read the details of this particular game. I'm sure someone will say Wikinews, and most people's response would be WTF is Wikinews anyway (what or where can be used for the W, variations on the F are encouraged). I believe that, eventually -- but not right now, and stop worrying about it-- it will be merged into Galarraga's article by baseball fans following a discussion on the talk page. Mandsford 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This'll be remember as a very significant screw-up in MLB history. It won't go away anytime soon. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing incorrect or untrue on this article that is legitimate reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.60.244 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, with a possible re-examination later. As of right now, I feel it doesn't run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, however I'm willing to concede that its too close to the actual event to be sure my opinion won't change. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is suitably referenced, definitely notable may be merged later in player's own article, but enough substance to stand on its own. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why are we even discussing this? Clearly notable. GregJackP (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should stay up, as it notes a time in baseball history that does not happen that often, if ever. Signothetimes90 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete - just an incoherent other stuff complaint. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The controversial play in question will go down throughout all of history as one of the most memorable moments in Major League Baseball history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.180.16 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bud Selig made it notable when he announced that this has event prompted him to review the need for instant replay in baseball. I'd say Jim Joyce's tears also make it notable! --User101010 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge, although obviously the consensus is headed elsewhere. This could easily be covered at Armando Galarraga, a number of the keep votes are not based on policy or fail to address the reasons for deletion (eg: it will be significant in the future, or there's nothing "incorrect or untrue" about it). Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per prior comments. A better page title might be considered, though.--JayJasper (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but all this can be covered at the Galaragga page. None of the actual perfect games have their own pages. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and this isn't a perfect game. It was stopped short of one because of a call, one that seems to have had more implications aside from deciding whether the 27th batter of a game was safe or out. There are numerous articles dedicated to blown calls, controversial endings, or memorable events/plays (e.g. The Play ("THE BAND IS ON THE FIELD!"), Music City Miracle, Disco Demolition Night, The Catch (baseball), Eli Manning pass to David Tyree). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep One of the most memorable plays in MLB hisory, also could be the play that leads to instant reply in baseball.--Yankees10 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Certain games in baseball history are so significant and/or notorious that they deserve in-depth treatment. This belongs in the same category as the Pine Tar Incident, the Shot Heard 'Round the World and others. (Note to Mandsford: Your comment that other perfect games don't have have a separate article is incorrect. There is an article on Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I wonder why that one is singled out, especially since there is no article on the most famous perfect game ever, that by Don Larsen. Given the rarity of perfect games — only 20! — perhaps there should be an article on each one, as well as near-misses such as those by Harvey Haddix and Ernie Shore. But that is another discussion.) Thank you. — Michael J 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is of historical significance and of encyclopedic value. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also (sorry for the double post) the Johnny Vander Meer analogy is out of place. This was one out away from being a perfect game --not a no-hitter. There is no equivalent -if there were- it would have its own article. Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this article would have even been created if Armando Galarraga's Wikipedia page had not been full protected by an overzealous admin. All the information that is in this near-perfect game article never had a chance to be included in Galarraga's own article. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per encyclopedic value. Also, (and I'm just being a baseball fan here) this is bigger than any perfect game (even though it's not one) in recent memory. However, that has very little to do with my point. But it does offer the chance at significant coverage. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We'll all feel stupid if we don't\. No question this is a game that will be talked and read about for decades to come, and it doesn't make sense just to leave it with a paragraph in the perfect-games article Thmazing (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This game will, and already has, had a significant effect on the history of baseball. Domz (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments about whether this counts as a perfect game and whether not counting it as a perfect game is grounds for exclusion miss the point - that the game is plainly enormously notable, like The Play or the Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final). Both of those occurred before there was a Wikipedia, but both were obviously matters of note just as quickly as this has become one. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in a few months it will be deleted, no worries. Prodego ^talk 04:05, 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. Clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bus[edit]

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

Why list a porn site that, by many contributors addmission, has a clearly mysoginistic format and, also quite clearly acts as advertising for the website? Why do other mysoginistic porn sites not have wikipedia entries? What is the point of entering an article about every controversion porn site which is dedicated to humiliating women? Mondoallegro (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the general notability of this particular site. Ultimately, this discussion has to be about this site, and not whether similar websites do or don't have Wikipedia articles. Bang Bus has been covered enough (and yes, to a great extent, for some controversies involving it) that it is notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it's certainly notable and has been covered, but so is Ghetto Gaggers, so if the decision is to keep this site I will create an article for Ghetto Gaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds like the nominator does not like the site which is the subject of the article. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a basis for deleting an article, if it has evidence of notability. Nor is "IFYOUKEEPTHISIWILLCREATEANOTHERARTICLE." The article cites references such as a 2004 Miami New Times article which calls it a "porn giant" and says it "often gets credit for being groundbreakers in the world of Internet amateur porn." There is a ref to a CommonDreams story with significant coverage. One ref is a story by TV channel 10, WPLG. The site won several awards from "Adult Video News" per the refs cited. These seems sufficient to make a notability argument. There are a couple of dead link refs in addition which should be fixed to see what they offer. Edison (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may not necessarily like the website myself, but I'm going to consider its article based on the merits of the article and not the nature of the website. The quotes that Edison has pulled above show that, regardless of what one thinks about the website, it's notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the miami times article in fact is a critique of the site, asking questions about the cost of this type of entertainment. Also, most of the other references are either from AVN or adult review sites, hardly notable sources of information. Many sites which deptict sexual abuse have been nominated by AVN, so what? What makes this site worthy of wikipedia article?Mondoallegro (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:NF with industry award wins. The GNews hit demonstrate notability according to the general guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on misogyny and misogynistic people. We can have one on a "misogynistic" website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's any comfort to the nominator, I strongly doubt that Wikipedia generates a meaningful amount of traffic to this or any other famous porn website. Its popularity may be slightly depressing but it's entirely independent of Wikipedia's article. 173.177.160.116 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is any comfort to the nominator, I do not like the site, and think that its operators are misogynistic jerks, and that the videos are poorly filmed. Edison (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a) the article is poorly written and mostly opinion, not fact; b) the subject of the article is not notable. And yes, I recognize that nearly everyone will reject 'a' as a cause for deletion and argue that 'b' is false. Eh. I say our standards aren't high enough. Valrith (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I grant that misogony or hate-speech is no grounds for deleting an entry since wikipedia (rightly) covers one of the most notorious white supremecist groups on earth (Stormfront) and they're pretty much the epitome of hate speech, but in this case the article in question needs more clarification and more thoughtful critique included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Nom has admitted in comments that the site is notable, and misrepresented sources. Pointy nomination based solely on noms dislike for subject.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:27, 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. consensus support that the subject is WP:GNG notable (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion, though I am in favour of keeping it. I know this isn't orthodox, but we're getting into a minor edit war in which two editors have undone the page and returned it to a redirect to Conservapedia without discussion, while other users contributed to the article. Therefore, I think AfD is the more appropriate medium. If consensus says we keep the article, we keep it. If not, we redirect. SmokingNewton (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following reason:

Schlafly has become SIGNIFICANTLY more notable outside of Conservapedia since the article was last deleted. He is Lead Counsel for the AAPS's bid to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, and more importantly: He is currently going through the courts on a precedent-setting case about Senatorial Recall.
He has become increasingly well known in the blogosphere, especially in fundamentalist right-wing & christian circles (within American politics).
His dialogue with Richard Lenski was widely reported across the Internet and by a couple of serious news sources.
He is one of the best known Internet critics of Wikipedia. In the interests of both neutrality and fair coverage, I think he should be covered here.
I know we should try to avoid, in AfD, "If this is notable, then that is notable." But let's be honest, inclusion of celebrity's children who have achieved very little and are questionable notable is relatively high on Wikipedia. Even forgetting Conservapedia, as Phylis Schlafly's son who has made a couple of Newspaper appearances because he's leading important court cases - that should be notable enough. He's a well known name in many Internet communities, and for me: that's enough for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs)

AfD is not the proper venue for deciding a "Redirect". This should be handled on the talk page if anywhere. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake - although, does it not make sense? Blanking & Redirecting a page is basically the same as deleting it, whereas I want to keep it. I've tried to talk about it on the talk page, but two separate people obviously weren't up for taking part in that. If you could explain to me the best way to handle this, that'd be appreciated. Thanks! SmokingNewton (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly in favor of just, oh, I dunno, discussing it. That's what the talk page is for. I'll start a new section so people can list sources that establish notability. Then we can informally (and without much drama) decide whether to turn it back into a redirect or not. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Conservapedia. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage specifically of him. He should be mentioned in the articles about other right-wing causes he is linked to. With respect to the argument "as Phylis Schlafly's son..." notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conservapedia. I don't see enough new sources to justify a different decision from the previous time we discussed this (not the 4th AfD in July 2008, but the merge discussion on the talk page in August 2008, which closed with a very clear consensus to merge and redirect). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Andrew Schlafly is now marginally notable now that his activity outside Conservapedia (such as his Recall Menendez activism) is being noted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. I know it's considered lame to !vote with a "per Foo", but SmokingNewton's bulleted list makes the clear case why the article should be maintained. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I feel that people are expecting a higher level of notability because this is a contraversial person. There're articles about minor actors who appeared in a couple of episodes of second-rate soap operas, and that's just fine, because there is no controversy. I'm a pretty liberal guy... and I don't accept what Schlafly says for a minute... but right now, I'm starting to feel like this is the Liberal Bias he's talking about. If I tried to throw in a left wing activist who wasn't unpopular and had all the same coverage as Andy, I don't think I'd find the same opposition. I hope we can have some serious debate, though. SmokingNewton (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that most of the potential Schlafly-coverage is actually Conservapedia-coverage. Schlafly is mostly notable through Conservapedia, most of the notable stuff was done through and at Conservapedia, so if he should get his own article, it's important to highlight (with sources) what he has done that's not just Conservapedia-related. And since people are now voting Keep after reading your arguments, here's my take on them:

We need sources. The currently new sources that go beyond Conservapedia-related coverage are the AAPS (the organization Schlafly is lead counsel for), Conservapedia and mention of his appearance in the recall issue. That's not a terribly impressive line-up, though the last one may have been a good start if anybody had bothered to discuss these things first before moving directly to AfD.
Being known in the US-centered politics-related blogosphere (by being a discussion item or through his site, which already has a long article) is a somewhat fuzzy metric, and I mildly doubt that it has a major impact on WP Notability (though I didn't doublecheck this, so I might be wrong).
The Lenski issue was handled through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already.
Even if we ignore the whole "All of this was done through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already" issue, "Andy Schlafly / Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia!" was just a minor blip in the first half of 2007 that completely failed to develop momentum, and his status as "person on the Internet that criticizes Wikipedia while also not being completely unknown" didn't make him notable even back then. How did that change? Did some of his recent criticism make it into any kind of mainstream beyond mocking notes? I can't recall anything.
If you know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, why do you use it as an argument anyway?

This is silly, and your AfD may very well lead to this article being completely deleted. This should have been a simple sourcing discussion on the talk page instead of moving to AfD (by the guy who out of the blue decided to recreate it) without any prior discussion. Until there are some good arguments why being the lawyer for one side in a Supreme Court case makes you awesome and notable (Do you need to fulfill specific requirements to be allowed to represent someone in front of the Supreme Court or could any lawyer do that? How unique and special are Supreme Court cases?), I'll go with "Delete or redirect" since aside from that, his entire notability is just through Conservapedia. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a notable person and for more than one reason. I've found a couple of recent sources that discuss Schlafly with no reference to Conservapedia. His notability appears broad enough to merit its own article. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Since this discussion seems to have actually gone forward. There are not enough independent sources that do not rely/mention Conservapedia to warrant an article on Andy himself. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reference, I guess I should've included my later comment about being contraversial as point 5. I feel that it is fair to point out that Other Crap Exists in this case - because other crap which is a lot less contraversial passes, and this doesn't. I feel like a higher standard of notability is being called for, due to the controversy. And that isn't a notability guildline. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the overwhelming impression that you have never read other crap, because if you had, I doubt you would make the argument that OC is fine here because OC. --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lead counsel for AAPS in a case that will never get off the ground, lead counsel in a case before the NJSC where the big questions is "Should we declare this obviously unconstitutional now or wait until after the signatures are collected to declare it obviously unconstitutional?" His notoriety as a critic of WP is nothing compared to Larry Sanger, and even if he were the #1 critic he hasn't done any thing outside of conservapedia, the blog no one can edit, to bring about any changes. Really, his noteworthy exploits extend to conservapedia and at its borders they end abruptly.' --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not RfC. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, because that's basically what the nominator is advocating. Notability has been sufficiently established and there's a good case to either keep the article as is, or keep it around as a plausible redirect and discuss Schlafly's involvement with Conservapedia in the Conservapedia article. Echoing the editor right above: AfD is not RfC; there's really no reason to delete the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough notability from his recent political/legal work to say he is not just notable because of conservapedia. Anyway does all that rewriting the Bible stuff really fit under conservapedia? Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Conservative Bible Project is a part of Conservapedia (note the "a project has begun among members of Conservapedia" on their FAQ page). Where would you consider a more appropriate place for it? – iride scent 10:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit it's complicated because Schlafly regularly uses Conservapedia as his mouthpiece for whatever wild idea he has. Conservative Bible Project and pestering Lenski were both his ideas, but he then described them as being community projects. I guess we will have to go with what the RS say about them. If they overwhelmingly say "Andy Schlafly says X on Conservapedia", then yeah, it should count more for him and his notability. If they say "Conservapedia, which was founded by Andy Schlafly, has started X", then it should belong more into the Conservapedia entry. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No vote from me yet (obviously it's either redirect or keep), but I think it's worth pointing out that Andrew Schlafly is Conservapedia, and repeatedly refers to himself as such. In his "news" items he's constantly going on about "Conservapedia is doing such-and-such" when it's Andy himself doing it, so he's already pretty well covered in the CP article. As Sid points out above, basically everything notable he's done has been through Conservapedia, with the exception of his lawyering, so in that field we have to judge him against the notability of other lawyers. His sinecure with AAPS doesn't seem to cut it on its own. The argument that the case against "Obamacare" clears the bar seems premature; I believe it is just one out of a slew of cases, and not one of the more important ones (unlike those of state DAs). The New Jersey recall case seems barely notable as it is, I don't think the lawyers on either side qualify on this case alone. The only question remaining is whether several almost notable things collectively add up to notability. I think both sides have their points. I'll think about it some more and look for sources. -R. fiend (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per having been received significant coverage and per the talk page being the better medium for discussing any edit wars. —fetch ·comms 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Keep He has been on Colbert and is an expert in multiple scientific fields. Pirate^Argh!!1! 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may be fringey, but is notable and a public figure. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public figures are notable per WP:GNG and it's hard to argue that this person is not a public figure in light of increasing amts of coverage (e.g. the Colbert interview). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 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 speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griscuit[edit]

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

Cookbook page. Heavily promotional, unreferenced. Contains anecdotal story. Doesn't show up on Google, so I'm assuming its just a family recipe. Didn't fit into any speedy category, and creator removed PROD, so here we are at AfD.

It looks like a mixture of advertising, how to guide, and personal essay. No sources. Pstanton (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete - Not notable and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Triwbe (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Its not even a recipe for a new food, just a neologism. It just says to cook the grits, mold them to look like biscuits, let them sit, then eat them when they've hardened. Grits says the food "can be left to cool in a pan or mold" and "can be eaten cold." Edison (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources haven't yet taken notice. First Light (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google only turns up random uses of the term. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:44, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music jury[edit]

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

Fails WP:DICTDEF, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe this could find a home in the Wiktionary. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems absurd as this is in no way a dictionary entry - not a word, no etymology, no examples of usage, no pronunciation, no lexical analysis. The article might be expanded to include details of the Pulitzer music jury as well as Juillard as this appears in numerous sources. And then there are the juries such as found in Juke Box Jury. Lots of potential... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Only the first line is definitional, this is not a dicdef article. Music juries are used in many prestigious musical conservatories. This stub is a small, but good, start, to having an article on the subject. I stumbled across this article to correct the misspelling of "Juilliard" (a fetish of mine), and was pleased enough that the article had been started to spend some time making some nonsubstantive edits to tidy it up. It should be expanded, not deleted. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A music jury is a definate thing. I now know more about them then I did before reading the article. (I thought it was going to be about shows like American Idol and I was prepared to delete.) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some sources exist covering the subject; not a dicdef. Possible merge candidate, but I'm unaware of any suitable target. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. There's no way that a full article will ever be created on this subject. SnottyWong talk 22:48, 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Man Where's My Guitar?[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't fuind significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 03:08, 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. JForget 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesoteric[edit]

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bootlegs are not assumed non-notable, they are generally non-notable. The ELs in this article, and the many hits found in a google search, show that Yesoteric has been the subject of sufficient attention to be notable. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - in this case the assumption about bootlegs does not quite hold up because the album is much-discussed and had an impact on subsequent events in the band's discography. I have tried to find some better sources but what's in the article now might be all that's available. If anyone happens to find a couple more solid sources, that should settle the notability question. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this is a bootleg, but every now and then you find one that has become notorious. This is one of them, and the Google searches show up more than enough, in the aspect of third party sources, to warrant keeping this article. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Undead Warrior said, this set is notorious. I'm sure the article could be expanded to address any concerns, but I'd certainly say it's notable. I'm not sure whether a source can be found, but I would personally guarantee that its existence and widespread nature played a huge part in the decision to release such expansive bonus material on Rhino's Yes re-releases as well as the "The Word Is Live" box set. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:50, 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. consensus for notability, nomination issues can be addressed through editing (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Curriculum (Columbia College)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A personal essay on the core curriculum of a single college, tagged for speedy as an advert but not blatant advertising, only highly laudatory in tone. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm afraid I don't really see why this has been brought back to AfD so quickly after its last one and it seems nothing has changed since the last AfD when it was resolved as 'keep.' If some time had passed or major changes had been made then of course it would be reasonable to discuss it again.--Wintonian (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quote from the Keep argument of Novickas in the first AFD, 2 months ago: "National influence. Some book quotes - "Of these, none was more important than the general education movement that was launched at Columbia University in 1919" [4], "Faculty at Columbia designed the first courses for this educational model" [5], "With its roots in the trivium and quadrivium, the modern history of the core curriculum owes much to the creation of courses at Columbia during and after the First World War..." [6]." I endorse this strong argument for notability, and add book references [7] which talks about it and says that after 80 years of it being the basis of education, over half the current Columbia students said it was their reason for choosing Columbia.See also [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], pp100-103. See also"New Yorker" page 48, [16]. Life Magazine in 1950 said the "famous core curriculum" at Columbia started the idea of a general common education in 1919, and that it had been adopted by Harvard and U of Chicago. Google scholar shows lots of papers with discussion of Columbia's core curriculum, behind paywall, which might also be used to expand and improve the article. Deletion is not a solution to a need for editing an article about something which has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons noted above Cjs2111 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The complaints raised by the nomination should be addressed by editing not deletion. Here's another source: A Vision of Transdisciplinarity. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that its too soon to be bringing this back again, the last one ending in keep. If you have a problem with an article, use the article's talk page first. Plenty of coverage has already been found establishing notability for this. Dream Focus 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and influential in the history of American education and is the subject of much commentary in third-party sources. I don't see any NPOV problems either, although the article is in need of a few citations. Them From Space 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs major improvement, but I think this is quite notable as a pedagogical phenomenon. Eusebeus (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs major improvement, as was mentioned at the last AFD two months ago, not a single edit was made to the article since then to improve any of the issues raised then and it has been tagged again as promo, which it does appear to be and it has been brought again the comments are, keep can be improved by editing, there has only been one edit, to add the rescue template, if in a couple more months the article is unchanged I wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for deletion again. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 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) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5845 (number)[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, unlikely search term. Prod was declined. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:NUMBER. Nothing mentioned here conveys "obvious cultural significance". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer - Transfer to Wiktionary --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would we say about it on Wiktionary? Nothing on this page is a "definition" of the number, it's more like trivia. (For instance, wikt:7 doesn't say "the number of days in a week".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think anyone would search 5845 to find it was the number of verses in the Hebrew Bible, rather they would find that fact out at the Hebrew Bible page. I can't see many people searching for the number 5845, to be perfectly honest. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I can prove by contradiction that all numbers are notable, WP:NUMBER proves we don't need infinitely many number articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Said the IP address. But seriously, delete per WP:NUMBER, not to mention it's a disambiguation page for claims, not actual articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnencyclopedic and Fails WP:NUMBER - we don't really need a list of 2 articles and who would search for 5845? I can't really add much to this discussion as I think its been summed up allreay. --Wintonian (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy merge to 5000 (number)#Selected numbers in the range 5001-5999. People might be surprised to learn that Category:Integers doesn't have that many articles in it-- I think that a few years back, someone set out to write articles about every number and they got to 216 (number) and said, "You know, I think that this could go on endlessly" or "Screw 217!!". Thus, numbers tend to be described within a range, so that 300 (number) is a repository for numbers in the "300s". Mandsford 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there's nothing verifiable to merge here. For example, this article claims without a citation that there are 5,845 verses in the Hebrew Bible. However, Chapters and verses of the Bible says that there are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament. Do the differences between the Old Testament as seen by Christians and the Hebrew Bible as seen by Jews cause the number of verses to vary by a factor of almost 4 to 1? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that (even though I think the article should be deleted). It's actually said to be the number of verses in the Torah, or Pentateuch - the first five books of the Old Testament, not the entire Old Testament. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly trivial and unlikely ever to be searched for. OK to merge as per Mandsford. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 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) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icomplete.com[edit]

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

This article is about a company that lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It claims a Dell Small Business Excellence Award, but it's not that notable an award. The company has some brief mentions. See [17], and [18] for examples. But that falls far short of significant coverage about the company.

Not a reason for deletion in itself, but there is also significant conflict of interest with article being changed from a despammed version to a more promotional tone. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless it can be re-written in a less promotional tone. I don't think saying that they help small businesses, "enabling them to upgrade their business, get more done and save time and money" really meets WP:NPOV. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was rewritten in a less promotional tone. See this version. The primary problem is ntoability which can't be fixed with a rewrite or a reversion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not expert in business awards, but does the fact that "in 2009, icomplete.com was named as runners up in the Dell Small Business Excellance Awards" not establish notability? Runners up they may be, but Dell is a prominent company. I suggest we simply revert the page back to the less promotional version. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Dell may be a prominent company, but are the awards that they sponsor significant? When I did a quick check, I didn't find a enough coverage to convince me that they were. And in any case, they didn't win. And finally, I'd be more receptive to giving the award more weight if there were some evidence that anybody actually took note of them being a runner up in the award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 (or WP:CSD#G7, as the author blanked the page three times but was reverted(?)). No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG, and the article was created and principally authored by the company's founder and marketing director. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons cited by Burke. The primary editor of this article is Claire Hibbert, a co-founder of the company. " The company provides innovative Web 2.0 / Cloud Computing service that brings big business tools (CRM, calendering, e-marketing and telephony) to smaller businesses," seems to stray from WP:NPOV quite a bit as well. Normycakes (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding engine[edit]

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

Contested prod. This appears to be a non-notable neologism. There are several sources but none of them offers more than trivial coverage, and several of them don't even mention the concept. In addition, almost none of the sources qualifies as a reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is rather difficult to understand what the article is even about, there is so much marketingspeak there. Could possibly be speedily deleted as spam. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is essentially made up of corparate jargon that would only be understood by an expert on the subject. It's hard to reach a consensus on deletion if no-one really understands what the article is about. If someone wants to translate the article so it is understandable and it appears to be notable, I will vote to keep it. If no-one volunteers to do so, it's a delete from me. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May meet notability guidelines, but unless this article gets cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, it should be scrapped. Hard to read, proprietary information on what appears to be a marketing search engine of some kind. Certainly a mess looking for an editor. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So confusingly written that it's hard to say whether it really means anything. Whatever it means, it's a bunch of gassing about how to make money fast on the Internet, and as such an unpromising subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:53, 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 delete. hoax: no sources, reliable or even unreliable reliable nor unreliable sourcehoax DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flannery French[edit]

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

This person supposedly has three published books. However, I can find no evidence of her or those books on Google, doverpublications.com, scholastic.com, Amazon, or WorldCat. I call hoax. LadyofShalott 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything to do with this person, let alone reliable sources, on Google. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax, if not then it's definitely non notable. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previously A7-deleted version is probably the real "scoop" on this girl: she's a high-school student whose mother is arguably notable, but who is not herself notable. (There was some rather interesting IP vandalism to the mother's article recently as well.) LadyofShalott 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or just very non-notable. Either way it has no place here. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:35, 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 Userify. Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CyaSSL[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. Have not found any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this article needs more reliable sources. Could you please move this article back into my User Space? Thanks. Chris conlon (talk) 17:49, 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) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies in Mumbai[edit]

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

Found while new page patrolling, typical WP:NOTDIRECTORY page. Unsustainable list "sourced" only to official webpages. Can be handled with categories. Rehevkor ✉ 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic WP:NOTDIRECTORY, redlink farm, excessive external links and if it sticks around will attract spammers. We wouldn't want a List of pawn shops in New York either. Bottom line, Wikipedia is not your local yellow pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list--Sodabottle (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for. Rename Category:List of Software Companies in Mumbai to Category:Software Companies in Mumbai. utcursch | talk 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a yellow pages... Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I think we can improve the article, like removing non-notable software companies names, only keeping notable companies name.KuwarOnline (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There are other similar pages like List of Software Companies in Delhi, List of software and BPO companies in NOIDA.--^Nilotpal42 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDIR. The vast majority of this giant list is nothing but red links and "footnotes" that point directly to unnotable company website.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:31, 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. JForget 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10tons Entertainment[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company in multiple searches. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertation of notability, and the onlt things I can find on Google and on the page itself are links to the company's own website. I can find no reliable third-party coverage anywhere. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:07, 4 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) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had previously redirected their game Crimsonland to this article, per WP:PRODUCT due to lack of notability; therefore I am adding it to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; Searching the web does not reveal any significant coverage of the company or their games. No other indication of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep (Crimsonland)~~ Delete - I found some coverage for Crimsonland from IGN which I added to the article.--Robixen (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage from IGN only shows notability if it is a review or news. All that the IGN link has is a game description which is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found and added Gamespot page with release informations, does it count?--Robixen (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Why do you think that a list of release dates is significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you're right, but I also found 2 reviews: http://www.gametunnel.com/crimsonland-game-review.php and http://www.games-here.com/crimsonland_review.html. --Robixen (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Game Tunnel is possibly acceptable as a source [19]. As for games-here, I can't see any information on their staff or editorial, so probably not a reliable source. I'd like to see more coverage before changing to keep, but the game is at least verifiable now. Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found one more source, but I don't know if this review is written by their staff - http://www.manifestogames.com/crimsonland. --Robixen (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It says "player reviews". Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I was talking about text above player reviews.--Robixen (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's probably a description, so I'm changing to delete, one article is probably not enough to establish notability--Robixen (talk) 20:07, 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. article was improved, clear consensus to keep, (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latma TV[edit]

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

Claim to notability is tenuous. Page cites one news article which is barely a passing mention (only the first three sentences of the article are about this video, and they don't say much more than "this video was released", and don't say much about the troupe itself; the rest of the article is unrelated news); I only found one other possibly reliable source, and it is also a passion mention that doesn't seem to pass the one-event guidelines. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has a great many citations.Broad Wall (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—plenty of sources cited in the article, so I don't see merit in the nominator's argument. While the sources are mostly reacting to the latest video, they all provide background on the initiative behind the video, namely Latma. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just FYI, this is how the article looked when I nominated it with my meritless argument. The creator has since added more sources; I haven't decided yet if it changes my opinion about the article or not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do believe that the article We Con the World should be merged with this one. But let's leave the verdict on that for after this AfD. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known in its circles before We Con the World and now known worldwide. Happy138 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete this entry when the video is making major rounds on the Internet? There are many wikipedia entries much more worthy of deletion than this. Stand up to the plate, Wikipedia. You can do it. We know you hate doing it, but the whole world is not about the Left and what the Left would like everyone to believe. Man up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.221.66 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Latma is basically the main attempt by the Israeli "right" to get some sort of satirical voice, given the monopoly the "left" has over the TV here. This has been covered in the weekly B'sheva (Arutz Sheva's newspaper) more than once recently.Mzk1 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator's rationale for deletion was based on premises that are no longer true, and no other argument for deletion has been provided. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge We Con the World into this article - I don't believe it's independently notable, or that we need articles on both. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a popular TV show in its country. We should apply the same standard to all countries, not just the USA.--RM (Be my friend) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this could easily be seen as ONEEVENT and I understand that Afd, but the group was active long before. --Shuki (talk) 22:43, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Liberals of Laval[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. None of the current refs mention the group. Google searches on both the English & French versions of the name find only 2 hits from reliable sources, one from 1978 (which may not even be the same group, in light of the fact that the article seems to say the article group was recently founded) and this unremarkable one. Non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should have been speedied, fails WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, COI. "Largest political youth organization in Laval" is far too weak a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real staffing group[edit]

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

Company claims to be notable; only Gnews hit is to a PRWeb "article." Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB Wright[edit]

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

Not sure he meets the notability criteria. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources, and the books are all essentially self0published self-help thingies. One nomination for a poetry prize does not make him notable, methinks. Chris (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some tentative indications of notability but I don't think it’s quite enough, if sources can be found then I might change my mind.--Wintonian (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 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 deleted (CSD G5) by Kww. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat Master[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BK, as I'm not finding evidence of reviews or attention in reliable mainstream sources or evidence that the "award" cited is at all notable. The creation of this article appears to be a response to the AfD for Bonnie Pemberton, of which this article is a verbatim copy except for the necessary changes in the first paragraph. Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book is notable because it is an independently reviewed and award-winning book. "The Cat Master" novel meets the criteria found at WP:NBOOK, which is that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This article meets the minimum requirements for inclusion and that is all that it needs to be kept. Inniverse (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the parts about "reliable sources" and "at least some of these works serving a general audience". Deor (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The below listed multiple book reviews (already listed in the article) are all reliable and independent from the author, and all serve a general audience:
Felinexpress.com
A Year of Reading
St. Charles Public Library
Powell’s Books: Staff Pick Inniverse (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I already pointed out at the Bonnie Pemberton AfD, the "independent reviews" that you are using are 1) a cat website 2) a blog 3) a library (which is not even a review - it is just a short sysopsis of the book amongst a list of cat themed books for children) and 4) a bookstore. If this is the is really all there is, then notability is most definitely not established. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cats aren't automatically notable? This is the internet. Otherwise, see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: felinexpress.com? you can't make this crap up!!!.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Pemberton - we don't need to have articles on the book and its author, as neither is notable independent of the other, and I'd say the author's article is the one to keep. (To clarify, I think the book is notable, but should be covered as part of the author's article rather than separately.) Robofish (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as WP:CSD#G5. Creator was a sock of User:Azviz. I still haven't figured out AFD closing yet, so I'll let someone else take care of that part.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beerathon[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability; unable to find any reliable, third-party sources that cover the topic. Davnor (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made-up drinking game: The premise of the event is to drink 24 beers before the 24 hour deadline. The grandmaster challenge is to drink 24 beers in 24 minutes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be a number of definitions or uses of the term, but none are consistent, so until one becomes notable, delete. --Triwbe (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish notability of the topic through references. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beerathon is an actual even known throughout an entire organization and university. Web pages have been created concernig this event. It, like many other college drinking games or practices, is something hundreds of people participate in and the number is growing. I need more time to establish the references. However, if Beer Pong or any other drinking game has relevance on this site, I see no reason why Beerathon shouldn't either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewAA80 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2010 — AndrewAA80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:MADEUP (again, I ask why there isn't a speedy criterion for games???). By the way, AndrewAA80, you should consider reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpol Demo Tape[edit]

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

Unreleased, untitled demo tape WuhWuzDat 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In this case it's obvious that the item was never anything more than a simple tape shopped around to labels. The fact that it doesn't even have a title makes info hard to find, but apparently this demo is not even worth noting in the band's biography, as can be seen at their article. The fact that this demo was created can be mentioned there for historical purposes, but a separate album article is not merited. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Never released. Joe Chill (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS: "...Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable". --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:52, 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 nomination withdrawn and no other comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Comics[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited in article, and none found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Chalmers[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (yeah, ok, it has IMDb. No reliable sources). No major roles. ("Best known for" role is the voice of a secondary character in Angry Kid who "talks very little".) Unable to find any reliable sources, just IMDb (+mirrors and similar projects) and Wikipedia (+mirrors and similar projects). SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 2 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]

Delete I can't help noticing that her supposed 'best known role' is so minor that IMDB didn't even bother crediting her for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Angry Kid is not listed on IMDB, the Atom Films series does exist,[20][21] and Chalmers CAN be sourced as being the voice of 'Litle Sister' [22] just as she was for the UK TV special for that series... titled Who Do You Think You Are... which IS on IMDB.[23] However, as she is barely creeping up on WP:ENT, lack of coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This perosn already has an article on the Harry Potter Wikia,[24] where they care less for actual coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor actress. Fails wp:N.--Maashatra11 (talk) 11:37, 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folkcracy[edit]

(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]

Delete classic WP:NFT case. Creator appears to have made a whole bunch of articles along these lines, and seems to be really really confused regarding what Wikipedia is all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability through references. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we have a snowball. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like someone is soaping the windows. By the way, I added two additional articles from the same editor, with the same problems. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Capcialism and Base capitalism, same reasons apply. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Irimescu[edit]

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

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:42, 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 article is about a non-notanle athlete. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to qualify as notable under WP:ATHLETE since he is reported as having played in the top division of Romanian football as well as playing for the Romanian national team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes ATHLETE having played Internationally for Romania, including WC qualifiers--ClubOranje^T 07:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. A lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a romanian international he's inherently notable. 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowball keep - Obviously notable athlete (and also a notable politician). I spent five minutes and added two references and fleshed out the article a slight bit. Article clearly passes GNG and ATHLETE, although it ought to be expanded and better sourced (no reason to delete at all). Jogurney (talk) 02:16, 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 The Last Airbender#Casting. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Airbender casting controversy[edit]

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

Article presents information already found in page for The Last Airbender. WP:NOTNEWS, the movie hasn't even come out yet. Separate article not warranted based on lack of information and also information that can be presented in other article. Dylan0513 (talk) 21:01, 2 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]

Userfy to creator's user space, looks like an article that has pontential but is unfinished nevertheless. Rohedin ^TALK 16:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Last Airbender#Casting where this subject is already discussed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I don't think it warrants a separate article, besides, there's nothing to complain about, Aasif Mandvi is so asian, he's ninja!--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I would say delete per the amount of WP:OR the article contains. However, the OR material can be removed. That would leave a duplicate of the The Last Airbender#Casting. So, as stated above, redirect to where its already discussed. Akerans (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The place for this is discussed in the casting section of The Last Airbender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.122.234 (talk) 05:29, 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midi Programmer[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Personal essay on the job; borders on a how-to. Cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero sources. Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what he said. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland[edit]

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

I've nominated this article for deletion for several reasons:

Poor prose especially in its lede and throughout the article
Entirely unsourced with no references
Makes far too many assumptions without given any sources at all to back them up and the only source that was given was a dead link to a site that doesn't exist
What this page details is essentially only one facet of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland and thats the IRA and their political party Sinn Fein which are already well documented and sourced in their own articles - thus it lacks scope and range as it completely ignores other strands of republicanism in Northern Ireland that don't adhere to Sinn Fein/IRA
It completely leaves out dissident republicanism and only mentioned Republican Sinn Fein once in passing sentence.
The article seems to white-wash over IRA atrocities and the negative impacts of Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland
The article adds nothing new that people can't already find in other better articles
No effort appears to have been made to improve it

Any objects etc.? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor prose isn't a reason - why don't you simply fix it. Unsourced because you removed a reference - why don't you simply look for another such as here from archive.org or alternaively here. Assumptions should be flagged with WP:OR. Dealing with only one facet calls for expansion of the article - calling for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Etc, etc. The bottom line is: Does this topic merit an article? Is the topic noteworthy? The reasons you have given for deletion are not valid reasons. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a dead link inline reference which was used for one statement not the entire article. The article qualifies for deletion on terms of virtually being a content fork. As i am not an expert in republicanism i am not going to major expand the article and seeing as very little effort has been made since this article was created to verifiably source it and even improve it - the article will no doubt remain the same. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I can see me having to rewrite the whole article lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, so does not justify deletion. The article can be improved and sourced; but as HighKing says lack of refs and poor writing are not valid reasons for nominating an article for deletion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poor writing and lack of refs calls for rewriting, not deletion, especially for a notable topic like this. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the nominator makes some valid points, issues such as poor prose, POV etc are best addressed within the article by rewriting and expanding it. Valenciano (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the points gives a single valid reason for deletion. The majority of the issues raised by the nominator, however, shows the need of a full revision of the article. --Darius (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clear WP:SOFIXIT. Suggest the quickest way to fix this article would be to copy over the relevant information from History of Northern Ireland and The Troubles, but of which seem to have a lot more care and attention paid to them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough, i accept and abide by the clear concensus shown here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and Merge into Irish Republicanism: Republicanism in NI is not a separate topic from republicanism in Ireland as a whole. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - i agree with that as some events in republicanism have effects on both sides of the border. If merged, use a redirect for the title to Irish Republicanism? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Merging, merging "should always leave a redirect". Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Irish republicanism Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is poorly written, yes, but is too notable for deletion. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:45, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Petersen[edit]

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

Contested prod. Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN, also fails WP:PROF. The article has existed as an orphan since March last year. Frickeg (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, is neither a notable politician nor a notable academic. Has recieved some coverage here in the Australian, here in the Brisbane Times and even an interview with Wikinews, but none of this suggests anything more than a perennial candidate for minor parties in seats where they have no chance. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To take a contrary position I am tempted towards Keep. While the result of her candidacy is not rosy, she seems to have left enough footprints in the media to sustain an article. She was allegedly pollywhacked, her karate classes are discussed, her loss twice to Tony Abbott seems discussed (and again,.... hey even wikinews interviewed her. All this coupled with probable commentary for TV appearances, commentary on her production of the "Vagina Monologues", her published views on subjects that attract commentary etc. There seems ample independent discussion of her, perhaps as she has fingers in many pies ? Appears to meet the standards needed for a decent article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but don't you feel like a lot of this necessarily comes with the fact that she is unsuccessful? An individual who, by virtue of running high-profile(ish) campaigns with no chance of success, is consistently on the periphery of the political landscape will get coverage like this, but does that make her notable? I feel like the nature of political coverage by the media during elections (often covering scrappy underdog campaigns) will lend candidates such as these coverage disproportionate to their notability. Essentially, I feel like the coverage itself suggests that she isn't notable. Certainly it doesn't suggest anything that might satisfy the political or academic notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in isolation they cast doubt as to her notability, your right she hasnt met WP:POLITICIAN nor does she meet WP:PROF alone but its the sum of these parts plus, her writting, her TV career, her radio career that combined makes her meet WP:NOTABILITY which is the defining policy, not the individual guidelines. Gnan garra 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let's take a look at those sources. We can dismiss the karate one out of hand - it's a promotional piece on a local website, the Ipswich News. Her loss to Tony Abbott (by the way, the source that says she got 4.3% is wrong, it was 1.8% - 4.3% was her vote in Bundamba at the state election against Jo-Ann Miller) is a textbook case of being an unsuccessful candidate, even if it received a small amount of coverage (not much - you need a lot more to qualify for that). The "published views" are published on a site for a rally at which she spoke. Her production of the Vagina Monologues was at the Ipswich Civic Centre. All these things point to a moderately notable local identity (if we were doing an Ipswich wiki then she'd be in no question), but none of them point to wider notability. The only thing that is a possible cause for notability is therefore her appearances on Beauty and the Beast - which, quite frankly, I don't think really cuts it. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at where those sources are the National broadcaster ABC, BrisbaneTimes both hace profiles on her and discuss her background both are major media outlets not some local rag. Beauty and the Beast was a long running National TV show. Your objection is based solely on her being endorsed for as a candidate for an election that hasnt even been called, as I've already explained she met notability for the sum of her efforts rather than an individual event, which is the purpose of dismissing political candidates. Oh any by the way the election has not been called there's not even reasonable spectulation of any date just that its going occur sometime in the future. What has happen recently is that a discussion occured on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Notability_of_political_candidates about how to address articles of candidates if they are created, this article existed long before that. Gnan garra 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that her notability extends beyond QLD an alleged assult was even covered in the Sydney Morning Herald Gnan garra 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. She'd be non-notable even if she wasn't. It was actually just coincidence that I happened to find this article just after the discussion at AUP. And, um, where's the ABC profile? I've had a look and haven't found it. So basically your approach is that she's notable because she is an occasional panellist on a daytime TV show and because she claims she was slapped by an ALP MP? My objections to all of the sources provided stand. Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please strike the statement Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN from your nomination because your objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. So what is your reason for nominating the article? Gnan garra 07:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nominating the article is that it clearly fails the WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF. You claimed that my objection was made "solely on her being endorsed ..." which is nonsense. My nomination had no political motivation, and was not a result of her candidature in 2010 - having found the article, I would have nominated it if she was running or not. Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this appears notable article was created in 2009 by Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation looking at refs from 2009[25] there appears to be enough to confirm notability. One of those refs listed[26] confirms that she was a regular panelist on Beauty and the Beast plus her published books, plus her previous failure during the last QLD election and current endorsement for the next federal election. she's notable just that the article needs a cleanup, and some careful watching for probable COI editing. Gnan garra 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Periptus has demonstrated more than sufficient coverage for this lady to pass the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's well-known, and the sources demonstrate notability. Australians on Wikipedia have the most bizarre attitude toward political candidates - someone whose biography wouldn't be questioned if they didn't run for parliament tends to get their article nominated for deletion if they later do. Rebecca (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.She's one of the best known feminist academics in Australia, specifically in relation to the pornography debate, she's competed in "Celebrity Challenge" a theatresports event reserved for high profile, notable figures, she is well known for her TV and radio work, she's currently receiving a lot of attention in relation to her political candidature and even if she wasn't successful in previous elections, her profile was such that she was discussed at length by leading media commentators. Her book "Morality, Sexual Facts and Fantasies" has been discussed at length by academics. I believe several philosophy departments (I know of one in particular in NZ) uses her book as their first year text book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.220.236 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment. As Frickeg has pointed out above, the coverage about Petersen that does not relate to her electoral efforts would constitute a very tenuous claim to notability when taken in isolation. However, those !voting keep seem to be suggesting that the overall extent of the coverage (relating to both her political and academic/professional activities) satisfies the general notability guideline. My question to those !voting to keep is whether the content of the coverage suggest that she is notable, or is it just the volume of it. To me, while the volume is not insignificant, the content itself doesn't suggest that she is particularly remarkable. I prepared to be convinced, though. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People can be notable for failing. Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards got most of his press coverage through coming last. The GNG doesn't ask whether someone's successful.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards was the UK's best ski jumper and a carrier of the Olympic Torch. I'm not sure the situations are comparable. Frickeg (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I've done a quick google search on her. Already I've found that she has given papers at a number of universities, her book is being sold in the Uk, US, Europe and India (maybe others I didn't keep searching), she has put on plays in Melbourne, Sydney, Byron Bay and Ipswich, there's internet evidence that she is an artist, there are numerous articles about her teaching and being a black belt in karate, a number of university sites mention that she is a politics, English literature lecturer etc, there are a few references to the fact that she was on a national tv show, was the relationships expert for two of the most listened to radio shows in OZ, radio 2ue Sydney and B105 Brisbane. She is mentioned on several other wiki sites. I've noticed that she is currently being attacked by her political opponents. One needs to wonder whether this push for deletion is really about political interference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment I've just been told that she has received international media attention including BBC news coverage for her views on pornography. You don't make the BBC because you have won or lost an election in Australia. She has an international reputation, not just a national one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noteplease note you are welcome to make further comments or respond to question but please preface your comments with Comment and only express either Keep, Delete, Merge, Rename once. I have struck the all but your first opinion amd replaced them with comment Gnan garra 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a link to the BBC coverage I would definitely reconsider my !vote, but Google News returns no such result. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not in any way notable, but Patricia Peterson, former University at Albany professor, may be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Read the Nutshell in Wikipedia:Notability. She has been noticed to a (possibly significant) degree by independant sources so she has some notability—the debate is about whether this is a sufficiency— and as such your bald statement appears to be lacking. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Peripitus. The general notability guideline does not say that simply because something or someone has received significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject it is thus notable. Rather, it says that this sort of coverage establishes a presumption that the subject is notable. Notability is indicated by significant coverage, not because of it. Something can receive significant coverage and still be completely unspectacular, as is the case here. Have a look at the revised article, which has been completely referenced. It has ten sources, and yet does not contain a single fact that might indicate that she is significant, unusual, interesting or notable.

Now I do not mean to say that the sort of coverage plays no part in establishing notability. If the BBC source had come up, that would have indicated international recognition, and I probably would have changed by !vote. However, this has not appeared, despite searching both the Google News archives and the BBC's website, and accordingly what we have is a well-referenced article about a completely non-notable person. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are confusing notable enough to us with notable at all. Bearing has declared that she is not in any way notable (read worthy of writing about) but those in the press who write about her surely disagree. Well referenced to reliable sources means that, to some extent, the subject is notable because it is noted in such reliable sources. Just because something is not spectacular, interesting or unusual does not preclude an article and the converse is true - Peripitus (Talk) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noting that she passes notability in the absence of her political candidacy, not because of it. Orderinchaos 05:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like someone more adept at self-promotion than anything else. Is def. not "one of the best known feminist academics in Australia" (if she was, presumably she would have landed a job somewhere). Her book was self-published by a vanity press. She appears to have no publications in refereed, scholarly journals. And no details are provided about her PhD thesis (topic, year of graduation, etc). Presents herself as someone who has lived all her life in the local Ipswich community, yet lived in Sydney long enough to complete her degree and contest two federal elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Church19 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 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) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProFicient[edit]

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

Non Notable statistics package Codf1977 (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this article keeps getting deleted. Please view the entry for "Statistical Packages" and you will see that there are many, many other statistical software packages that have Wikipedia pages. ProFicient is a statistical software and should be represented in the same way that the other statistics packages are represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz111178 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the product does not appear to meet the guidelines for having a WP article. Codf1977 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mention of product in single reference; impossible to gauge notability due to false positives on Google. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reference mentions the product under its original name (according to the article) of InfinityQS SPC. Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nothing indicates that this software product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. The existence of "many, many other statistical software packages" suggests that few or none of them rate encyclopedia articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although it sounds like it might be notable, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so we can't verify the contents of the article. I had a good look, searching for "InfinityQS" rather than "ProFicient" (too many false positives for the latter, and any significant coverage would include the name of the company): Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The News hits appear to be reprints of press releases, as does the existing ref in the article, so don't count as independent reliable sources. There are some mentions in books, but no sign of significant coverage. It's true that there are many other statistical packages with articles, but that's not a good argument against deletion—quite a few of them probably don't meet our criteria for notability either (though I wouldn't go as far as Smerdis of Tlön above as I'm pretty sure many of them do). Qwfp (talk) 11:32, 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) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Chang[edit]

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

Fails WP:Politician, in that has not been elected to anything. Codf1977 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything on him other than the type of routine coverage that all candidates get. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be some local volunteer who is now running for state representative. Can't find anything that would surpass WP:LOCAL after a brief search. And if one divides Illinois population by number of state representatives, it's about 11,000 people/district, and he's only a candidate for that. --Closeapple (talk) 10:35, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Building[edit]

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

Non Notable Building Codf1977 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The Building is notable- It Was Madison's first skyscraper Zonafan39 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly a skyscraper - it is only 9 floors. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Skyscraper is an exceedingly loose term. The definition I'm most familiar with is that it's a steel framed building, not necessarily that it's very tall. This building probably fits that definition, though the article's not terribly clear. No comment on whether this building is notable. Buddy431 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the building isn't a skyscraper in the modern sense, you have to remember this building was completed in 1915. Outside of New York and Chicago, buildings weren't that tall. One of America's first skyscrapers, the Wainwright Building was only ten floors. I just think since the building was a first for Madison, it is somewhat notable. Also, I'm not sure if this is on the National Register of Historic Places, but it should be because it is part of Madison's history.Zonafan39 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Madison's first skyscraper? That seems pretty obviously a notable part of Madison's history. It's a respectable stub; deleting it would be a terrible waste. - Draeco (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Draeco's rationale. It is now well referenced. Royal broil 04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Draeco-Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:41, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; no outstanding advocates for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Padovese[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E Codf1977 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)~~ Snow Keep Codf1977 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I wonder if there's any specific argument to contest the notability of the article's subject matter. Behemoth (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there does not seem to be any reason why this guy is notable - it falls just short of WP:CSD#A7. as I said in my nom WP:NOTNEWS. Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Roman Catholic diocese bishops are concern to be notable and Bishop Padovese was the bishop of the Apostolic Vicariate of Anatolia-a missionary diocese in Turkey-Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roman Catholic bishops are notable, lots of press has been written about each and every one of them. Royal broil 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about this one - what has been writeen about him prior to his death ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Padovese was a theologian and scholar and published several books-[27]-Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep Even if Monsignor Padovese was not notable before his murder, people are often notable only for the means of their death. (E.X. Rachel Corrie, various Victoria Cross winners, etc. V. Joe (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Roman Catholic bishops are notable per se. Those who are martyred just before meeting the pope or after being connected in a notable trial most certainly so. The nom is so off-base ("just short of A7") it seems to rebut an initial assumption of good faith. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is yet another case of someone having to wait for an article until they die. That doesn't mean they weren't notable in life. Certainly does not fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E as the nominator has said. --can dle •wicke 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a bad joke? He was a RCC diocese Bishop, theologian, scholar, and author of multiple books who has been not just been murdered but murdered for reasons that may make this into an international event. Keep --CatholicW (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable before his death- all Catholic Bishops are-, and he's more notable now. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In addition to the more relevant reasons mentioned by others before me, as of yet he has articles on five other wikipedias already. --Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Meet or exceeds WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:: no serious question re notability based on bio or circumstances of death. [email protected] (talk) 15:35, 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 speedy delete G3. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Isabella Giray[edit]

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

Fake person, no sources. Article claims that she was the wife of Vlad the Impaler, yet "was never recorded by history." Unsurprisingly, also never recorded by Google. My PROD was contested by the author, but feel free to db-hoax if you'd like. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! Speedy delete as G3 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kriss Worthington[edit]

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

Politician of no more than local importance who fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN Lincolnite (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only has local coverage like every politician. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided on this one. The "newspapers" cited in the article are local and fringe, but he actually has generated a lot of coverage in the mainstream regional press - the Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News - over his actions as a city councilman. I may try to strengthen the article before rendering an opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N as reliable third party sources cannot be found for subject. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:23, 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) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deora's GW Prediction[edit]

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

This is an original research article, transcribed by an editor from her blog here[28]

However, Wikipedia is not the place for original research.WP:OR.

Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought. WP:FORUM.

This page has been speedied twice via G12 already, but since the article creator has claimed to be the original author, and made statements releasing copyright, it is ambiguous. Therefore, I wish to raise it here at AfD to decide the matter definitively. And then in the future it could simply be speedied CSD G4. Pstanton (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:No original research. Text has been blanked from the original blog, and in any case author could grant a copyright release; but this is clear OR. Sorry, Deora, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish your work - see also WP:NOT#OR. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article is an original essay which fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Also, the featured main Global warming article already exists with several well-documented sub-articles on predictions. A separate article of one person's view constitutes an improper point-of-view fork. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a person in India's Rajasthan State writing about global warming and ground water depletion (hence the "GW") and possible consequences regarding earthquakes and shift in the Earth's axis. Nobody paid to Jor-El until it was too late for Krypton. Mandsford 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the copyvio material is removed, I believe the article should still be deleted for the reasons given above. OlYeller^Talktome 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OY, I declined your G12 speedy tag because: first, the text does not come from multiple websites but rather one specific blog; and Ydeora, the blogsite owner, is currently attempting to rephrase this article to pass our copyright standards; second, the purpose of this AFD is determine if those efforts are worthwhile. A third G12 speedy would require this discussion begin again with the next revised creation. It's best to let this run. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I should have checked the edit history more carefully before tagging for G12. Sorry for the disruption folks. OlYeller^Talktome 17:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 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) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klára Laurenčíková[edit]

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

Not notable administrative worker, an unsuccessful candidate in the current Czech legislative election. Laurenčíková has worked for a brief period as a state secretary under minister Miroslava Kopicová and has been occasionally mentioned in the reliable Czech sources, however, I can't find any sources indicating importance of this person - there are many other state employees on similar level in the Czech state administration. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN requirements. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Czech_Republic. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a high state administration worker. Not notable enough. - Darwinek (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to have done nothing special enough to satisfy the notability criteria for politicians. - filelake shoe 09:17, 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. consensus that the publication is notable.within wikipedia guidelines (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Today[edit]

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

Non Notable University Alumni newsletter. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - most definitely notable, not least because it is for one of the UK's highest profile universities. The publication also carries articles by notable authors and is featured in other publications e.g. here. A well referenced article for a magazine established over 20 years with a large circulation - most definitely a keeper. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Oxford University is not notable, just this publication - I was not able to find significant references to it by independent sources, the one you list is a references but it is only in passing - "Oxford Today" is not the subject of the piece. As for the point about "notable authors" - that is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED - it is very easy to get anyone notable to write for any newsletter given the right circumstances. Codf1977 (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, a search of Google Scholar reveals that there are many references to this publication in other publications.[29] Since the great majority of these are pay per view, you have to look at the actual search results to see the context of the usages, and some patience is required since there are also uses of the phrase "Oxford today", but the search results reveal many citations of articles from this magazine in other works. And the April 5, 2010 Guardian article mentioned by Simple Bob (and picked up by other media) is about this publication and its future, and goes into some detail about how the magazine has historically maintained independence from the administration, All of the above is inconsistent with the nominator's characterization of this publication as a "newsletter".[30][31] Clearly notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simple Bob. Plus there are plenty of independent sources to satisfy general notability. Royal broil 05:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is not a newsletter, it is a well established magazine with an ISSN, started in 1988 with a circulation of 150,000. It is widely referenced by other Wikipedia articles, not to mention published books, etc., a selection of which are in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough of the sources in the article are both independent, significant and reliable to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows 1230 results mentioning this. One that stands out is from The Guardian, which mentions that Oxford Today is "a glossy sent three times a year to about 190000 alumni around the world". A high circulations, and it mentioned throughout many news sources. Dream Focus 04:54, 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) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Taberner[edit]

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

16 year old Canadian mountain biker. Fails WP:ATHLETE and there is "no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The only source, used four times in the article, is a list of race results, showing he came 50th out of 60 in an intermediate men's race (not even in the expert men's race) and failed to start another; elsewhere on that website we learn that he came 47th out of 56 in another intermediate-level race. A Google search / Google news search reveals nothing of value to add to this. Unsourced quotations. Speedy deletion was declined, so bringing it here for a wider audience. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, and is almost certainly a WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bender[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:N. Potential candidate for a political position, not yet elected. No evidence that his life prior to his candidacy was reported upon by independent reliable sources. Article has promotional overtones, and is largely based on press releases and personal homepage." Some of the promo language has been removed since, but the article still fails to show how this political candidate meets WP:BIO (WP:POLITICIAN). Fram (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he wins the Republican nomination he will be notable, because of the expected major press coverage. Until he does, he's not likely to be, unless a good deal more is shown than is shown by the present article. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has already received major press coverage. You can't arbitrarily decide the matter; read (WP:POLITICIAN) for the exact criteria by which we consider articles for inclusion or removal. As the rules state, a political candidate may or may not be notable for his candidacy alone (i.e. a city council candidate who receives no press coverage). They are notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The subject clearly meets this criterion. Even if he wasn't notable for his business career (which he is), his political candidacy has produced major press coverage "independent of [him]." His columns appear in New Hampshire's state paper, the Union Leader; he regularly appears and is discussed on the state's news station, WMUR; and he's discussed in the Boston Globe, Politico, and other reliable, independent sources. Inclusion of the subject can only enhance Wikipedia as a credible source of information. X127.0.0.1 ( talk ) --X127.0.0.1 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable for his business career? Taking a source from the article about his business career, we see that he is only mentioned in passing, and as an example of someone who has "worked out of the spotlight", indicating that as of 2004, he was considered to be not notable by reliable sources.[32] The only thing that changed since is his political candidacy, which is a WP:BLP1E better covered in an election article, if at all. Fram (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the notability of his business career is something upon which a question may be raised, the publicity and major press coverage he has received as a result of his senate candidacy qualifies him as notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMRichard (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having reviewed the article, I see no basis for deletion. It contains numerous, independent citations indicating major press coverage and it meets (WP:POLITICIAN). He's notable, so unless there's some other argument for deletion, the page should stay. Pfirsichen --Pfirsichen (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:POLITICIAN) makes it clear that potential candidates for office may or may not be notable enough to merit inclusion, so the arguement that if "he wins the Republican nomination he will be notable, because of the expected major press coverage" is not valid. In addition, the phrase "expected major press coverage" incorrectly assumes that there has been no major press coverage already. It is clear that this article deserves to exist. Furthermore, the message at the top of the page suggesting possible deletion of the article should be removed as it tarnishes the article despite being based on an incorrect reading of the rules outlined on the (WP:POLITICIAN) page. PaulMRichard ( talk ) 11:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However notable he may be (and I'm not convinced), this is spam. If it is to survive, it should be without the 'election manifesto' promises sections which are just advertising. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Eyes[edit]

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

A Google search did not turn up any hits that meet WP:BAND. The author suggested that they may meet criterion #7 (prominent local representative of a style), but I haven't seen any sources for that either. PROD was removed. Jminthorne (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to see any reliable source, almost all false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G7 per authors repeated requests. WuhWuzDat 12:59, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Portnoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Portnoy

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

This subject is not notable enough to have his own wikipedia article. His only claim to "notability" is he once invaded a Bob Dylan performance. This does not make him notable. The majority of Wikipedia users would never have heard of this man. Article says he has history as a comedian and is now a performance artist, but there are many non-famous comedians and performance artists in the world who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. This article was clearly made by Portnoy or a friend for self-indulgent or promotional purposes. Not notable. Brianzamfel (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tried to repair this AfD on behalf of Brianzamfel. Someone check it is okay now? --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's sufficiently notable to get articles written about him and his work in the New York Times (see also this), he's notable enough for an article here. Plenty of coverage also of his 'Soy Bomb' performance and subsequent events: [33], [34], [35]. See also: Performing Arts Journal, Metropolis M, Martos Gallery, [36], Art in America, Sundance festival.--Michig (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of sources, already listed in the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Written up in multiple reliable sources from 1992 through 2010 show this individual as meeting WP:GNG. And with respects, I seriously doubt the nominator's assertion that the article "was clearly made by Portnoy or a friend", as its author, User:Luvcraft, has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004.[37] No matter who wrote the article, it now belongs to Wikipedia, and the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple credible sources. Enough to keep Sargentprivate (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't made any investigations into notability, but I would point out that the nominator's statement that "the majority of Wikipedia users would never have heard of this man" sounds more like a reason for keeping than for deletion, as the whole point of an encyclopedia is expand the knowledge of its readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. Evalpor (talk) 14:09, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Giovanni[edit]

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

WP:NN actor Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a career consisting of only unnamed, descriptive roles in 4 episodes of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, and one executive producer credit for a 2005 low budget film fails WP:ENT. And with no coverage in WP:RS, the subject fails WP:GNG as well. Maybe this will change... maybe not. But as for now, the article is waaaaaaay TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OneVietnam Network[edit]

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

Non-notable unlaunched website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:FUTURE applies here as well. Jminthorne (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-Girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable manga series that fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-MANGA. Single short direct to DVD adaptation is not a "significant adaptation." Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. Oo7565 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author, notable publisher, ran for more than one volume, adapted into animation. If any of the preceding weren't true, deletion might be a viable option, but put together there's a fairly ironclad case for notability here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notable author, yes, but not so overwhelmingly notable that automatically everything she writes is notable. Notable publisher is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited in that way. Length of serialization is not a clause of WP:BK and proposals to add it have always lacked anything close to consensus. If the anime were a television series, then it would be an automatic notable, but it's an OVA, which means it has to demonstrate notability with, for ex, reviews. So, no, not ironclad. That said, there is one very strong indication of notability, which User:Starblind doesn't mention, which is that it was republished in a new edition -- that doesn't happen unless there's strong continuing interest. It's not on its own enough to demonstrate notability, but it means the work should not be dismissed out of hand without a good hard look for reviews and the like. Withholding my !vote for now till I have a chance to do said searching. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I've actually seen this one in the States, a copy of volume 2 in my local used book store. I didn't pick it up as the Chiho Saito was more up my alley, but its presence in the remote deserts of Arizona suggests something. Dunno what. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of mainstream attention given to manga in Japan is enormous, especially compared to comics in America. I'm always comfortable assuming that Japanese-language reviews exist for virtually any series that makes it to book format or is animated. They'd be in Japanese and in this case nearly 30 years old in this case, so they certainly won't be easy to find, but they're out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far more coverage, yes, but not for everything. More of a problem is that practically none of it appears online, and what does disappears with archiving blocked. At least of the reliable print reviews sort. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For a series published 25 years ago, I'm finding a fair amount of Japanese discussion of this series online, but I'm not nearly fluent enough to evaluate the reliablity of any of it. (I'm also finding a surprising amount of English fanfiction for a work that has never (that I can tell) been scanlated or fansubbed, let alone licensed. But, however startling, this is irrelevant to our purposes.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Quasirandom; kanzenban editions only happen for the biggest titles around, and any title that gets that treatment is considered to be a classic of the medium. Doceirias (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is another hard to search for title; Google and most good search engines will want to interpret it as 'a girl' which is utterly useless.

However, my CSE search does seem to show a (dead) forum copy of a French magazine's article, and another page suggested that A-Girl is covered in The Anime Encyclopedia. --Gwern (contribs) 21:59 6 June 2010 (GMT)

I used the same query and found absolutely nothing, not even a single manga review in English. One review in Japanese detected [38] (via Google translation). -- deerstop. 00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While its easy to argue that it must have sources because of its age and its being published in a kanzenban edition, without any actual evidence of said sources, we just can't presume they exist. Any notability of the author does not confer to every book she's ever written. Nor does who published it, nor is the number of volumes. It was adapted into a single OVA. I did find the reference in Anime Encyclopedia, a two-sentence mention as part of the entry on the Margaret Video Series, which the OVA was actually a part of. That, to me, does not constitute significant coverage, and nor one has yet to provide any actual demonstrable proof of probable sources. Redirecting to the author's page would also be appropriate, but as of now it fails WP:BK and WP:N as no actual, verifiable significant coverage has been produced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AnmaFinotera. There is not much more I can say that she hasn't already said. But we do not assume significant coverage by reliable source exists then there is an absents of evidence. The author isn't historically significant (ANN only credits her with three titles, only one has won an award) and the publisher has no affect on a book's or manga's notability. We wouldn't consider a book published by HarperCollins automatically notable because it is published by HarperCollins, nor is such a criteria reflected in WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work was republished over a decade after original publication, a clear sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based in significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. So where are the reliable third-party sources? —Farix (t | c) 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After poking about some more, I'm convinced that this series is indeed notable but its age makes finding online sources that can prove this sufficiently to others ... difficult. The circumstantial evidence includes not only the high-end reprint edition but a startling number, given its age, of online reviews/discussions of the series in Japanese, but none I can clearly point to as being reliable -- and I'm not fluent enough to evaluate their reliability myself. As such, I cannot !vote for delete. I'm not sure I can vote for a keep either. So for me, abstain. If the result is delete, the article should redirect to the author, Fusako Kuramochi. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepKuramochi is indeed an artist who is of such significance ("overwhelming significance," Quasirandom) that just about anything she has ever made, and which remains in print today, is worth at least a stub--in Japanese, anyway. Since none of her work has, to my knowledge, been translated into English, her significance may not be obvious to anglophones, but if you were to ask every well-known manga critic or shoujo manga artist in Japan to list the 100 (or even 50) most influential and important shoujo manga artists of the past fifty years, Kuramochi's name would be high on just about anyone's list. She doesn't just have a loyal fanbase: she has been and remains highly influential. That is precisely why almost everything she has ever done remains in print today. This discussion was just brought to my attention today, and I haven't had a chance to look at the English entry for Kuramochi or any of her works. If there are already pages for her more famous works, I see no reason why this one should be deleted. If not, this seems an odd title to start with. But if the point of contention is "significance," then there's no doubt that the article should be left in place. Matt Thorn (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the reliable sources to support any of your arguments? The last AfD scrapped by with an allusion to potential third-party sources. But those sources were never found and incorporated into the article. I'm going to insist on more concrete proof this time. —Farix (t | c) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thorn IS a reliable source. Doceirias (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it even the real Matt Thorn? Given the Essjay scandal a few years back, I think it is prudent to be doubtful. Besides, even if it really is the real Matt Thorn, we don't base the verifiability of information—especially when it comes to verifying the notability of a subject—on someone's credentials, but on reliable published sources. So even Matt Thorn has to back up his claims on Wikipedia with published third-party sources instead of with his credentials. —Farix (t | c) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Matt Thorn has blogged about his Wikipedia involvement, this is his actual account. (unless, of course, it's his little brother at the keyboard. ;) ) If Matt Thorn were to blog about A-Girl, then we could use that blog entry as a reliable source, although as we require more than one such source, it would not be sufficient to prove notability on its own. --Malkinann (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When editing here, Matt Thorn is an editor, like any other, and not a reliable source in terms of his responding here making it a "source" for Wikipedia purposes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been the AfD of Fusako Kuramochi, i would have certainly voted keep per Matt Thorn argumentation but this isn't so we are back to the basics meaning WP:BK & WP:N. Now i want to question our collective attitude toward experts, do we really welcome them as Wikipedia pretends to do so? Sorry, i can't just stand the near schizophrenic stance, we welcome them and yet we find them rather too meddlesome.

@Matt Thorn Please Like Malkinann said write something on your personal website, this will be by a fair margin the most efficient way for an expert to interact with Wikipedia currently unfortunately. --KrebMarkt 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per arguements given, I too feel that information does exist to prove notability but it can not be found online as the series is so old. Then again if it were a notable series then why is there no reference information about it online? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning writer. They don't pay to turn something into animation unless its popular. This is significant, professional level quality, as opposed to simply something someone made themselves. Dream Focus 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the author is historically significant (ie. their work is routinely a subject of scholarly study) the author's notability has not affect on the notability of the work. So far, there has been not proof of that via reliable sources. Also, whether she won an award for an entirely different manga series is irrelevant to the notability of this manga series. Notability is not inherited. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Gan’t Boar Like An Eabla When You Work With Turkrys[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this compilation album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this book which says that the album is highly loved. The coverage in the book is only that sentence. I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unknown Unreleased Tracks 1985–95[edit]

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

Non-notable self-released demo, per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines in American movies and television[edit]

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

This is a poorly written unsourced "Philippines in Popular Culture". The entries here are mostly passing mentions of the country in the theme of "Woah look! someone spoke Tagalog in this movie!" and does not satisfy our notability standards. The other entries, if sourced in the future, is better off added to their main article. By the way, I'm disclosing that I'm from the Philippines so I hope this would prevent Reverse discrimination arguments. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but trivia. A valid article on this topic may be acceptable, but it would have to be rewritten from scratch as nothing here meets our standards of reliable sourcing, summary style, and original research. Them From Space 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything in here actually meets our standard of notability, because it's limited to those notable works that have a WP article, which is the standard of notability! If for some of them it's doubted that the Philippines have a major role in the plot or setting, the individual item can be discussed on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ideally, some of the elements of this article should survive somewhere, and I am loath to judge a page by its awkward title. We could stand to lose the entire television section, which is mostly uninteresting "in popular culture" tidbits, and have a good article about the many Hollywood movies that were filmed in the Philippines. As the article points out, a lot of American movies (particularly war movies) were filmed there, and the context for that can be enriched with sources. Among the factors that made it attractive as a location were a pro-American government, lower cost of living (including lower wages for Asian extras), and cities, jungles, rice paddies, mountains, etc. I would hate to see the information lost. Mandsford 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is basically a stealth 'in popular culture' article, and as written is 100% trivia. I actually think a decent article could probably exist about this topic, if written in prose, well sourced, and without trivia. However, that would be a completely different article with none of the present material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTDIR. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization article. Similar to Aardvarks in Norwegian newspaper articles or Garlic in South African CD cover art. Any shred of encyclopedic content can be moved to the main article on the film or TV show. SnottyWong talk 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article stinks, but that doesn't mean it cannot be improved. How the U.S. movie world views the Philippines is interesting, since the Philippines was a U.S. colony for about a half-century before the Japanese invasion in World War II, and after the war its politics and culture were dominated by U.S. influences. This could use some Pinoy power to clean it up. Don't be in such a rush to get rid of it. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. If an article could be made, then let's wait. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind actually voted to Delete, so how can you "Keep per Starblind"? SnottyWong talk 19:02, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Gold 1996[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 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) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draymond Green[edit]

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

College athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No indication of meeting either the general or athlete specific notability requirements. I A7 speedied this once, but will give it a chance at AFD this time in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is barely sourced, half of them are unreliable and it is written like some sort of promotion. Fails WP:ATHLETE. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:26, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Young[edit]

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

Barely fails WP:PROF by my reading. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I argue that she meets WP:PROF by having been President of the Missouri Political Science Association, being a Walker and Doris Allen Fellow, and having published works on assessment that have concretely influenced the policies of universities in entirely different parts of the country. Beyond being a professor, though, she has served in political positions as a member of numerous statewide panels that govern higher education in Missouri. Also, if you go to Google scholar and type in "Candy Young" instead of "Candace Young" you will see her actual works. In particular, her article on capstone experiences is widely cited and has been used as a model for capstones at universities across the nation. In fact, Truman State University was the first school in the nation to implement a broad and robust assessment program, and this assessment model is under Candy's direction and has influenced numerous other schools (unfortunately, my source for this information is a dissertation entitled "Strategic Responsiveness to Institutional Pressures" by Debra Cartwright, so it is not very accessible for verification). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 21 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) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I haven't seen any evidence such as heavy citation of her publications that she is considered an important expert in academic assessment, and there is little or no nontrivial third-party sourcing about her in our article. The SUNY "celebration of teaching" thing that she is cited for in our article appears to be primarily an internal quality-building administrative exercise, not something we can hang notability on. So I'm not convinced from the evidence presented here or what I can dig up on my own that she passes any of the criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep President of Missouri PSA should surely count for something. And she apparently held government positions.Cptcrow (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serving as president of Missouri PSA seems to satisfy criteria #6 of WP:PROF, and presenting a paper at the American Political Science Association's Teaching and Learning Conference satisfies criteria #1 that her work is considered to have made an impact. Harland Q Pitt 02:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Presidency needs to be of a major national or international organization to meet WP:Prof, not just a local state group. The government positions are limited to "statewide panels",which do not seem to be important, and notability based on them would require meeting the GNG, for which there is no evidence. She has only one paper in Scopus, and nobody has ever cited it. I can find only one relevant item in Google Scholar that has any citations at all: [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/101521541/abstract= --and it has only 10 citations ever. Presenting a paper at a conference is not making an impact in the scholarly world--by that standard almost every graduate student would be notable; for bios of faculty here we don;t even include them in the article, let alone rely on them for notability. I'm not sure there's even a credible claim to notability here: pure promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. This individual appears to be heading down the road of notability, but hasn't quite gotten there yet. SnottyWong talk 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:47, 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. see also, Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quidco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All the current references are at Quidco's own site, so not independent. All the references that I can find at reliable sources are minor ones, mentioning in a list of similar websites, etc. Note: the last AfD in 2007 closed as no concensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would agree the article appears to have been edited by some people to promote the site, the company is notable, as I explained several times the last time deletion was proposed, years ago, as the following quote from then demonstrats

Comment The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources", it features in The Guardian, The Independent, The BBC and twice in The Times [39] [40]. It also has been referred to, by Reuters, Moneyweek, Motley Fool and moneysavingexpert. Supposed 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Supposed (talk)[reply]
Tentative delete. Current references are not independent. Phantomsteve asserts that independent references he has found are minor. Supposed disputes this. However, of the sources Supposed raises, the ones that load are the BBC and the 2 in the Times. In all 3 cases, Quidco is mentioned briefly and in passing, providing in one or two sentences the same info one could presumably find in the company's marketing material. This does not meet the bar of "non-triviality" or of independence. I'm marking my delete !vote as tentative, since I'm willing to change my mind if someone does find an independent reliable source with significant coverage of Quidco as a topic. But let's not forget the goal of our notability guidelines. It's not "has this entity been mentioned somewhere somehow in the press", it is "is there enough nontrivial and independent material published in reliable secondary sources to enable a thoughtful wikipedia article". Martinp (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a corporate ad. As noted previously, anything you read about this company on the Wikpedia article, you would likely find on their own website. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment' Indeed it does read like a corporate ad but if you look back at what it looked like when it last went through the AfD process it was very different. I'd delete it in its current form but maybe revert it back to how it was during the last AfD and nominate it again? One thing I do know is that quidco is probably the most notable reward website out there and that is really saying something as it competes with offerings from microsoft and shopping.com. Supposed (talk) 02:18, 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. Shimeru (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Murray's Celebrity Bull Riding Challenge[edit]

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

As this article's creator back when it first aired, I expected it to become notable for all the stars in it, but it has unfortunately remained a very unnotable series, failing WP:N. While it was fun to watch, it never gained any real media attention beyond CMT's own promotional materials and press releases. No reviews, not even much news coverage when the stars got hurt. All three sources in the article are from CMT itself and Amazon.com. Only ran six episodes and apparently was not successful enough to do it again. Fails WP:N, but as others have edited not really a CSD candidate. Prod removed by new editor User:Inniverse with note of "remove prod - notable TV series" but without giving any actual demonstrable notability or addressed concerns of prod reason. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author. Note that you could probably have this CSD'd via {{db-author}}, since it appears you have been the primary contributor. — Timneu22 · talk 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reality TV series aired on the CMT Network (available to more than 84 million homes in the USA), and it was broadcast internationally across the USA and Canada The program was also available in other international markets. The program may not have been successful enough to have been renewed for a second season, but it is notable by wikipedia standards and it qualifies for an article. Inniverse (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? What channel it aired on is irrelevant as is how many homes said channel reaches. That doesn't make it notable. Nor is how many of those folks watched it, not that we know, or if it was a "success" or not. Notability requires actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not just regurgitations of CMT's own press releases, minor foot notes in articles about the celebrities themselves, and CMT's own coverage of the show. The show does not, in face, meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources:
Reuters: Stephen Baldwin injured in bull-riding fall
Celebrity Bull Riding Challenge (unofficial site)
THE CANADIAN PRESS: Ismail named announcer for PBR bull riding
MMAMania.com: Josh Haynes: Former UFC fighter to appear on CMTs 'Celebrity Bull Riding Challenge'
TV.com
Reality TV World
Video Surf
Common Sense Media
TV Guide
Designed and Animated by Adam Gault and Carlo Vega
Reality TV Magazine
LoveToKnow.com
CBC.com
Helium: Bull riding: The fastest growing professional sport
Deadspin: Ride, Raghib Ride, Upon That Mystery Bull

Be honest now, you didn't even look did you? Inniverse (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those are not reliable sources, others are simply press releases and minor mentions noting the cast or mentioning it in passing, as already noted. I did look, thanks for the usual "good" faith. Obviously having created the article, I had a more vested interest in keeping it and I found and still see no actual significant coverage of the show itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:37, 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 speedy keep. Article fixed and reverted back to a stub (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weiz[edit]

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

Arcticle is incomprehensible, machine translation? --Temporaer (talk) 12:21, 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) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The AFD page was created 7 days ago but not properly formatted and the article was never tagged. Consider this the first week of discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nominator is talking about the article version that looked like this. I have removed a substantial amount of the page as there were major errors in population (8,000 vs 60,000), municipality type (small town vs city), and a bunch of other issues. The grammar was also a mess. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:34, 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. Noting that Inniverse (talk · contribs · block log) has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhangi Sakhalkar[edit]

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

Non-notable singer - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Contested proposed deletion Claritas (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I searched the Google News Archives and the web and this is the only sort-of independent coverage I found, but she still fails WP:MUSICBIO, unfortunately. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject passes WP:GNG. The English language article [41] demonstrates that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Shubhangi Sakhalkar is a notable Indian musician. Most references to her are to be found in Punjabi or Hindu language sources. Many more verifiable references will be found if one is able to search other languages. Inniverse (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article in a magazine with medium circulation is not "significant coverage" in my opinion. Claritas (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She lived in the U.S. since 1992, so sources in other languages than English are not to expect (and I checked Indian English newspapers). The article is not substantive, just read it, it gives away nothing that would make her notable and none of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria are there. Hekerui (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 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) 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. SnottyWong talk 23:17, 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Kriya[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. PROD was removed previously and incorrectly restored. Original PROD concern was: "This article is written like an advertisement. Older revisions and discission pages have hinted for a deletion already. The notability is also challenged. It is completely unencyclopedic." HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising: If the page is about "Sudarshan Kriya", this being an "encylopedia," then this breathing practice should be explained here in thorough detail. e.g. "Samayana Pranayama" means to make the length of inhalation exactly the same time and depth and the exhalation. Be we are not given the details of the "Sudarshan Kriya" practice. Without this the article comprises "lead marketing" which tantalizers readers to search for the details of the technique, but that technique is only available for a fee by signing up for an Art of Living workshop. This contravenes the Hindu and yogic etiquette of the religious and spiritual heritage from which the practice is taken: which is that these teachings be given freely those who request then and are fit to receive them. I'm not saying that there is not a legitimate place for such marketing or such fee-for-program enterprises, (everyone has to make a living) but just not in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailasnatha (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But some editing needs doing: such as, the first paragraph under the title Scietific Research deals with and cites references that deal with respiration exercises in general and not with Sudarshan Kriya in particular - that paragraph needs to be removed. References relating to yoga without specific reference to Sudarshan Kriyas should be removed. There seems to be enough articles about the subject matter in scientific journal to make it morderately notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced and meets the standards established by the WP:GNG. Moorsmur (talk) 19:16, 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) 00:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is written like an ad and needs to be rewritten. It additionally needs to be wikified. I think there is valid information presented worthy of preservation, however. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is an advertisement for the "Art of Living Foundation" and the "International Association for Human Values". The subject itself appears notable and could probably have an informational article written about it. However, the article in its current form is completely worthless. Delete the article, and when someone comes along with the knowledge and motivation to create a proper, non-advertisement, encyclopedic article, then it can be re-created. SnottyWong talk 22:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Sudarshan kriya is just one part of the many different kriyas (activities) done at the Art of Living workshop. But then why does an article exist for only this kriya? The main reason is because this kriya has been trademarked / copyrighted by the Art of Living. Hence, nobody can teach it, and has only to be learnt from the AoL by paying an amount. This distills down to the point that the article is in fact an advertisement and the procedures / methods done cannot be put in an encyclopedia for fear of copyright violation. Aside from an advertisement, being a trademarked kriya, it shouldn't be promoted on Wikipedia. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 10:26, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithmics Inc.[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable business that provides enterprise risk management solutions and services to financial institutions. No indication that it has ever "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." As such, it is not really a subject that rates a separate article in an encyclopedia. References provided are to a risk-management magazine with a limited audience, non-notable trade awards with a limited audience, and top 100 lists. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep Ummm... maybe it was added later, but one of the references on the page is to an article about this company in the NYTimes. Information Week also appears to be a reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The New York Times article is at least arguably about this business, although it seemed to me that people from the business were quoted on a general story about risk management. But the Information Week material is all routine press release announcements of product releases and mergers. I'm still not certain that any of this shows that this business had any significant impact on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massoud Derhally[edit]

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

Autobiography of a journalist. No independent sources. Google shows articles written by him but I cannot find any independent sources about him. Reads like a CV. noq (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have a feeling there are sources out there, but I can't find them. He does report for major publications, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable The article (sourced only to his website) gives a long list of the people he has interviewed, but that doesn't do anything to make HIM notable. (Recall the recent series of pipsqueaks who claimed notability because they had once interviewed Noam Chomsky.) The article claims he has BEEN interviewed by NPR and BBC; those interviews could establish him as notable but I can't find them. So I am going with delete but could change my mind if presented with evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Badr[edit]

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

The article is completely unfounded and sketchy. It is countered by this article, which states that the land was owned by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. This may be Arab revisionist history and should be investigated with contemporary source material, not revisionist "history" books. This would be similar to Sheikh Jarrah, which was a mixed or Jewish neighborhood prior to 1948, but during Jordanian occupation 1948-67 was recreated into the "Arab" Sheikh Jarrah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallurgist (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the sources I just posted to the talk page (from Benny Morris and Moshe Gil), this image of the area from 1918 and the accompanying description attest to Sheikh Badr's existence as an "Arab village". Morris describes it as a "subrub-village" of Jerusalem when discussing its depopulation in 1948. Gil refers to it as a "neighborhood".

I also don't see how the article you (Metallurgist) linked to disproves the existence of Sheikh Badr as an Arab village and later neighborhood of Jerusalem in any way. Suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Tiamut^talk 23:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason for deletion has been provided. Extra material on the article talk page provides proof that this was a genuine location. Zero^talk 05:15, 29 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) 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Givat Ram, which is the same area. In general, one geographic area does not get a separate article for each time that its status changes. Unless, of course, we treat Israel differently. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brewcrewer. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program[edit]

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

Declining speedy, unsure of notability or precedents. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to Indianapolis Work Release Centers. If high schools are generally notable, prisons are too for pretty much the same reason: they impact many lives and communities, and even more than schools, prisons are related to entire sequences of newsworthy events. Parts of this may be editorializing about the Alan Matheney case, but the underlying institution seems to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 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) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere, but certainly not notable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 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) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Days of Defiance[edit]

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

The bands official website has the announcement on their homepage. Their homepage is the single citation in the article. Drizzt611 11:26 PM (EST), 30 May 2010

Future album with no assertion of notability. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 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, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band claims on its website they are releasing an album in the fall, not widely reported or notable apart from to the band and the fans who can read the news at the bands website. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RateItAll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite an impressive list of references, they appear to be all either press releases from the company, or mentions in passing (e.g. in a list of similar websites); does not meet WP:WEB -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: last AfD was in 2007. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — subject notable in the industry, traffic amount data is significant (even if showing a negative growth). Sources in indipendent industry-related media available (summary at CrunchBase). Mentions available even on Google Scholar. The most recent reference by a reliable source i found is an article by VentureBeat. — Zhernovoi (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that CrunchBase is "CrunchBase is the free directory of technology companies, people, and investors that anyone can edit." (http://www.crunchbase.com/about). The VentureBeat article looks to me like a reliable source (it's editors are professionals, rather than just anyone!) - but the other references in the article were press releases or mentions-in-passing, as I noted on my nomination. I'm still not convinced that significant coverage is there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CrunchBase Profile reference can be used to sum up mentions of the subject — it contains boxes with TechCrunch and Techmeme articles covering RateItAll. — Zhernovoi (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Leng[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Long-unsourced article without any significant claims of notability; PROD removed without any assertion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Dismas|^(talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails to meet any form of notability criteria. EuroPride (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable galmour model in the UK where she was a 1998 covergirl and centerfold model for Rustler Magazine issue no. 275[42] She has numerous appearances in several Playboy publications. Iftelse (talk) 16:45, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on how many times Playboy has chosen to publish her. Dream Focus 06:14, 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) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Workshop[edit]

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

Listing as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum Channel (2nd nomination). delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was all set to say "delete" when I saw the article, it has no outside sources at all. But a little searching found this. I don't suppose one article in the LA Times qualifies as multiple outside sourcing, but there are also many references to their drums in articles about musicians; I could be persuaded that the article passes muster if a few more sources were provided. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Drum Workshop is arguably considered the biggest independent, high quality drum manufacturer on the planet. I had to do a double take when I saw it in AfD. Anyway, the problem here seems to be that the references and tone need work. Open any copy of Modern Drummer and within a page or two a DW ad will show up, or they will interview a drummer that endorses the product, etc., etc. In short, the company is considered something of a Rolls Royce of drum manufacturers. Give me a few days and I will clean it up. We do want to keep this one as it will come back eventually anyway, they are that big. It would not be unlike saying we don't want an article on Chevron or K-Mart. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I've added two references and cleaned up much of the offending tone of the article. Give me some time and I'll add more references and general editing. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in several books, with at least one of those books including a couple pages of coverage on the company. That's plenty to establish notability, and additional sources will turn up, my search was intentionally narrow to get quick results just for the AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five references, properly placed, as well as several external links to the company's own websites. Though I've only added five, there are near unlimited amounts of references, both in print and online. I also cleaned up the article quite a bit through editing, as well as removing the anecdotal portions and making it much more "Wiki." Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back Yard Recordings[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 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) 00:04, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HexaKarta[edit]

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

Non-notable game, "currently under development as an online game.". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity isn't in distrubution, "currently under development as an online game." is in reference to the electronic version of the game. The physical copy of the game has existed since 1998 when I created it. (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanocathail (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional. notability (in the sense we use at Wikipedia to determine whether we cover a subject) is in neither distribution nor development, but in independent, reliable, secondary sources, of which I can find none. —Korath (Talk) 20:54, 29 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, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Prototypes of the game do exist but it has mainly only had a small cult following and has never been commercially produced." Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to verify the existence of this game, let alone its notability. Only sources in article are two fairly murky pictures and Google searches return absolutely nothing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Prototypes of the game do exist but it has mainly only had a small cult following and has never been commercially produced." ... in other words, the very definition of completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 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) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nichols[edit]

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

Unnotable Canadian actor. Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in any reliable, third party sources. I can't even find that the news covered his claimed death (can't even find verification that he is dead). Most of the shows he made a "guest" appearance on are not notable. Article appears to be a prosed-up version of his IMDB[43] and TV.com pages[44], which are of questionable accuracy (TV.com lists his as doing other roles not listed in IMDB and IMDB lists at least 3 folks with that name who have done acting). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 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) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did a lot of work in a lot of notable series, one of which he was in 50 episodes! Dream Focus 06:20, 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) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article might be a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced BLP. SnottyWong talk 22:49, 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) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Limp (...Rest of Limp)[edit]

(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) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 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) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find coverage of any sort for this album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DFW. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 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) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Paisley[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. This individual only held major office in a small city. No indication he meets any other notability criteria. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls foul of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests), in that 100% of the coverage is local to the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, population ~30,000. (That policy specifically mentions mayors in the lead paragraph as a subject potentially only of local interest.) I'd note that were the local interest issue rebutted, he otherwise has signficant coverage in reliable independent sources and would pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DustFormsWords. Outback the koala (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 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) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twistin' It Up[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 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, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant ocverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this topic. Article lacks sufficient context to enable other editors to meaningfully expand it; it appears to be about an unreleased album and therefore falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:10, 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) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outpunk Dance Party[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation, not much on Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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) 00:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this album; in addition, the article contains little more than a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no big fan of pages dedicated to individual albums. It does seem to be standard practice on WP for such things to stay rather than go, however. Outpunk is a historically significant underground label, in my estimation; please see the link for queercore before pulling the trigger on this particular page. I think Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely problematic for underground music — a line certainly must be drawn, but where to draw it? It's a matter of "feel" rather than mechanical adherence to arbitrary rules... Outpunk absolutely falls on the "significant" side of whatever line is drawn for 1990s American underground punk in terms of historical and sociological importance. Walk lightly here, there are plenty of other crap music pages to slam instead. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are reasonably clear; they require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. You may (successfully) argue that in some cases an album is notable despite not reaching that standard, but then you fall foul of the requirement that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you don't have reliable sources discussing the subject, how can you possibly write a verifiable article about it? Also I can guarantee you that the nominator of this article will, on his past form, eventually get around to slamming all the other "crap music articles" too (although we're not saying this particular one is "crap", just not notable). If you would like to save the article, the very best thing you can do is to find some coverage of it in reliable sources, as defined at our policy on reliable sources, and link them in this discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Carrite, I came here to basically write what DustFormsWords wrote, but I would like to add that everything in Wikipedia is a simple matter of getting verifiable, credible sources. Anything can be significant in terms of something else--your girlfriend breaking up with you is very important to you--but is an album that is important in terms of 1990s American underground punk also important in terms of a general-interest encyclopedia? Probably not. Either way, if you have sources that can verify the existence of this topic--which is not in doubt--and then furthermore assert its notability, then it's a simple keep. I could not do as much, so I nominated it for deletion. Furthermore, if you really want to take a look at my contributions, you will note that I have nominated literally hundreds of album articles for deletion and the vast majority of them were deleted. Which is to say that a.) I would like to get around to deleting all of the extraneous album articles on Wikipedia and b.) that I have a fairly reliable sense about what constitutes reliable and unreliable album articles. In this case, I feel confident in my nomination and what you wrote above has hardly dissuaded me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources? No article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 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) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Blues (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Only source is a blog and this article has content copyvioed from it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 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) 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 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) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lykathé[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability criteria. LYKANTROP ✉ 09:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; no releases on notable labels, no coverage in reliable sources (just the usual selection of metal webzines). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove metal[edit]

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

The term "Groove metal" is a neologism. After a very extensive original research and synthesis of published material has been removed from the article, there is literally nothing left. The article contains no single reliable source about the term or concept; but only sources that use the term - as it is required in neologism policy.

When voting, keep in mind that this is not about gaining enough votes for Keep and outnumbering the nominator, as it turned out the last time. If you want to keep this article, you need to come up with an actual argument, which can only be a substantial coverage by reliable sources about the term.

Please avoid following arguments from the last nomination, because none of them prevent the article from being a neologism: "The nominatior is POV" - Can not be evaluated, "The term is notable" - It is an AfD because of neologism, not notability, "The term is frequently used" - That fits neologisms, "Reliable sources have been removed" - No they have not. The original version contains no additional reliable sources.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re WP:SNOW Wiki libs (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for an actual argument?

"Nominators don't determine how votes are weighted. Closing admins do." --King Öomie 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ever indicate that nominators determine how votes are weighted. I explained how to keep an article.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 07:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious and blatant Keep- This isn't some "genre" that one band claims to have created, and then went to wiki to try to create an article to give their band some publicity. This is a well known and defined genre with numerous well known and notable bands, like Pantera and Machine Head. Sources exist for it as well, as has been proven in the previous afds. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I haven't seen any original research or synthesis removed from the article, therefore it stands on its own feet as a stub. Was thrash metal a neologism before it was widely written about rather than used? And, by the way, I think you'd have trouble arguing your case at DRV if an admin, by chance, manages to decide to keep this again, and you don't agree because it wasn't on your terms. – B.hotep •talk• 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does this keep coming back? Not a single editor agreed with the last proposal to delete. Article is short but I don't see any reason to delete. Also, I object to being advised as to what arguments I can't use in my support or opposition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. agree with them.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to all above. Well, its nice that you guys want to keep this, even argumenting with WP:BALL, which is not a policy. In contrary to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", which is a Wikipedia policy. Nothing you've said prevent "Groove metal" from violating that policy. You were given enough time since the last nomination to provide reliable sources, to expand the article and to prove your claims. But no one did anything. You can't keep an article entry based on snowball effect of article-supporting users without a single argument. The article still fits the deletion criteria per WP:NEO. You did't disprove my nomination. And you can count User:Rockgenre as a "delete" vote since he nominated last time.

In other words: "Groove metal" violates WP:NEO. Simple as that. Why do you think that you are entitled to ignore that Wikipedia policy?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the proposer last time, Rockgenre, changed his vote to a weak keep. By the end of the discussion, nobody wanted to delete it at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, allright. He changed his mind about the notability, that is right. Then just don't count Rockgenre. But that changes nothing here. The term is a neologism and is at this point unable to develop above a stub based on album reviews and articles that just mention it. The bands mentioned in the article seem to exist since early-/mid-1980. I wouldn't wait for music journalist to finally cover the topic with sources after 20+ years. Fusing it into thrash metal and giving it a secton there would be more than enough for the sources that it has.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, so why on earth did you initiate an AfD? Have you seen WP:MERGE? And the precursor to that should have been alternatives to deletion. If you are going to accuse others of ignoring policy, you should at least have read that one and then the guideline on initiating a merge discussion. Such judgement makes me wonder if you have a real handle on what a neologism is. – B.hotep •talk• 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've flip-flopped on this article on several occasions, but truth be told, Lykantrop is right that "groove metal" really is a neologism. This article will never get any bigger unless no one pays attention to it and IPs write whatever nonsense they want. The Washington Post is really one of the only references which really talks about it and the definition they give doesn't really make sense considering groups that fans apply it too like Pantera hardly had any hip hop or dance influences. I doubt that anyone can actually find a legit source that says, "Groove metal was popular between...It's music mixes....It declined when..." Regardless, this article won't get deleted because fans care about this term too much. RG (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan. Notice I didn't vote last time, merely commented. I recognise it as a valid sub-genre. The neologism stance is trying to worm around the issue. What I am now saying is why wasn't this pursued in the proper manner? It seems like a very bad faith nomination to me. – B.hotep •talk• 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a fan either. The idea that the article won't get any longer is not a reason to delete, by the way, obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was pursued properly. Lykantrop put the article up for deletion like I previously did because no one could find many sources about the subject. I've found numerous sources from mostly independent newspapers, about.com, etc. using the words "groove metal", but other than the Washington Post, what can we find giving this term a definition or a history? A two sentence article is kind of useless. RG (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you don't understand the proper process for AfD. Have a look here at #4 – Before nominating an article for deletion – "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD" – there has been no merger discussion, contested or otherwise (according to the talk page). Such attempts at bypassing the system (you think the merge will be contested, so you bring it here) is called gaming the system. – B.hotep •talk• 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think the point that was being made was that if merging it with thrash metal would be satisfactory, what is this AfD all about? It suggests that no alternatives to deletion were considered, even though this article has been up for deletion twice before and never came close to being deleted. It's a poor effort, at best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging this article with thrash would be that no sources claim the two have any connection. The Washington Post calls it hard rock that mixes hip hop and dance music, nothing about thrash. There's really nothing that would be an appropiate article to merge it with here. RG (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is your take on the matter (and seemingly the nominator's). Not proper process to bring it here. Also, article marked clearly as a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub#Basic information, "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." – emphasis added. The clues are all there. – B.hotep •talk• 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit not true, I thought it was a stub. Because of the varying size of the article over the months, it was marked as start, should now be stub. – B.hotep •talk• 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, I've now changed it to stub. – B.hotep •talk• 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.hotep, you just try to water this nomination down to make it seem ambiguous, but sorry, that's just twaddling around. The article fails WP:NEO so I nominated it for deletion. I know the article for a long time (my first edit December 2007 link), and I wanted to keep it in the first nomination (February 2008), but since then (and since long time before it), the article showed zero progress. And as I said, after RG removed purely non-reliable sources (webzines, random fan sites, etc.) and original research from the original version, there is basically nothing left. Since then it is tagged as an article that has problems and none of the editors touched it (what is considerable with 40+ watchers and several hundreds of readers/day). The article also has no potential to grow; the bands were around since 1980s and there are still no proper sources for it, and I see no chance for the sources to come. And those little sources that are there, don't even make sense together. I am not proposing to merege this with thrash metal. I just said that you can use this minimum of sources that it has for thrash metal (if possible, what RG doubts). But this article entry, no matter what future it has, is a neologism that shows itself as a perfect candidate for deletion.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it's at university, and I'm not right now, but Gary Sharpe-Young (a very well respected writer) has an entire section in his book all about neo-metal/groove metal bands in "Metal: The Definitive Guide". I would say delete, but make part of WP Project Metal's list of tasks to write about this either in the crossover thrash or thrash pages with a view to expanding that segment once sufficient content is found. Until then add a re-direct link to there. It's an offshoot genre, once we can prove it was an established sound then it deserves a segment of it's own. I do not think however, many people know many bands that qualify other than Machine Head and Pantera. Plenty of noteworth bands do, but work must be done within the confines of an article about one of the originator genres first. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That is definitely positive, and I agree.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No replies = everyone content with the deletion? Any questions?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keep, keep, keep, keep so far... in case you lost count. Wiki libs (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Content with the deletion"? What are you suggesting here? My vote was keep, in case you think you've changed my mind somehow, and the only delete vote is the proposer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You both examplary fail to comprehend some of Wikipedia's basic rules: duscussion or a deletion process. What am I suggesting here? WP:AFDEQ: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself."

You are polling and think that that's enough. I am saying "Groove metal" violates WP:NEO. You fail to disprove me = You fail to prevent the page from deletion. And now I'm asking whether you're content with this result, not whether you want to poll a second time without any argument.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "examplary" means, unless it's a neologism that I don't know about. It's amusing that you think others have failed to understand anything when your whole argument hangs on something that you don't understand. Groove metal is not a neologism. Neologism = "new word" - a neologism is a newly invented word, usually cobbled together from other words. "Groove metal" may be a novel term, but it is not a neologism. If it were, then all music genres would be neologisms when first used, and that's patently not the case. Your neologism idea is a non sequitur, so no, the article should not be deleted on that basis. WP:NEO is not applicable here. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you are the only person with this point of view? You think that just because you've waffled on about your neologism stance, that it qualifies as THE argument, and therefore your point of view will prevail. Bretonbanquet (talk)

I don't understand why do you tell me "Neologism = "new word", usually cobbled together from other words." It is not up to editors to make definitions of what neologism is and what is not. Why do you say "WP:NEO is not applicable here." It is not up to editors to decide which policy is applicable. You don't need to waste your time making your personal rules. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia but it is not an anarchy. All rules are applicable on all articles. "Groove metal" is not an exception. It relies on 2 poor sources. It doesn't put together even the most basic information about the genre. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." I mean, look at the article. It's 2 sentences and 2 sources. This is not "books and papers about the term or concept". It's loud and clear.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "made up" the definition of "neologism" - that's what the word means, sorry about that. "It is not up to editors to decide which policy is applicable" So what have you been doing throughout this discussion??? You decide a rule is applicable, yet another editor's opinion that it doesn't apply is somehow invalid? This discussion is going nowhere because you seem to think you have the monopoly on applying and interpreting wiki guidelines. I don't accept your application of WP:NEO because groove metal is not a neologism. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable neologism used in a variety of reliable sources. Article needs improvement, but that is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Article needs improvement"? Exactly. Of course it does. That is why this why I created this page. But everyone failed and fails to accomplish that task for couple of years due to permanently insufficient sources. That means it violates WP:NEO, and is up to deletion.

WP:NEO:

"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."-- LYKANTROP ✉ 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it's not a neologism. I've been looking up examples of neologisms, and this doesn't fit the bill. From our own article: laser, robotics, genocide, agitprop; grok, cyberspace, nymphet; Catch-22, Orwellian, sadistic, quixotic, monomyth, quark. Neither is it a portmanteau – that would be something like grovtal. Similar cross-genre terms within heavy metal are nu metal, alternative metal, rap metal – do you class these as neologisms? The writing of "new" as "nu" certainly is. I think you're on the wrong track. – B.hotep •talk• 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crux of it. Groove metal is not a neologism, and apparently there is no other popular basis on which to delete this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to look up anything. Other words have zero relevance here. I don't remember WP:NEO saying anything about one term fitting the other. Why do you ask me what I classify nu metal, alt metal and rap metal? Again, anything else than groove metal has simply zero relevance here. Why do you keep twaddling around about other things? This is about "groove metal". Not the other articles. Please stay focused on the topic.

And by the way, no I don't classify them as neologisms. The articles do not fail to "cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." "Goove metal" (2 sentences, 2 sources and an almost empty infobox) obviously does fail this, therefore, fails the policy.

The problem of this article is lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." You can observe it yourself. You just need to click on this link: "Groove metal#References" and count. This is not ambiguous. This is a simple fact. 100% transparent. How many more times do you want me to repeat this again?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat it as many times as you like before realising that some people simply don't agree with you. It's clear that you think we're stupid or misguided because we don't accept your point of view, and it's becoming a little offensive. I suggest we leave the discussion here, because we're just repeating ourselves with no prospect of agreement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is, and has been, that it is a neologism. I think it is germane that I mention other sub-genres/precedents in my argument that it isn't. Two sources is fine for a stub article and there is no actual time limit to completing the article. Those are facts. I have answered your questions, and I, too, am growing weary of repeating myself, so consider this my definitive argument. – B.hotep •talk• 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how old can a neologism be before it's no longer "neo"? Is it greater than or less than two decades? --King Öomie 18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources state one generation, or approximately 15–20 years. – B.hotep •talk• 19:17, 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) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pool Pros[edit]

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

Completely unnotable company, in my opinion. Information about the family of the owner is unsourced, irrelevant and indicates that the article was written by the company's management to me. SmokingNewton (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. 3 of 4 references used do not "address the subject directly in detail." The 4th reference reads like a yellow pages ad, which does not make the subject notable. Akerans (talk) 18:43, 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.