The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect. Controversy is notable; magazine is not. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—firstly, Secas far as I can tell, WP:ONEEVENT does not apply to companies. This magazine, its practices, its market, its themes and its editor have had much coverage in the news recently, and this surely confers notability. Secondly, if the nominator is in fact seeking a redirect then this is not the venue and this discussion should be closed. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Company/magazine has no notability beyond the incident, which is already covered in an article of its own. Although WP:ONEEVENT does not seem to me to explicitly apply to companies, there is no reason we can't use the same principle in considering whether a company is truly notable. The magazine seems to have received only trivial coverage, incidental to the coverage of the plagiarism controversy. cmadler (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is nothing in the article that in any way asserts notability except the plagiarism controversy, which is already well covered elsewhere. Two of the three references deal with the controversy, the third is not a reliable source (being the magazine's own website). Jimmy Pitttalk 11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company's own website is obviously a reliable source. It may not be a neutral, independent, impartial or third-party source, but nevertheless... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The company's website, because it is not independent, does not do anything toward establishing notability. cmadler (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it did. I merely disputed Jimmy's (ridiculous) claim that the website is not a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having read the article on the controversy, I followed the link to the Cook's Source page in the hope of finding further background info on the publication, such as who the publisher is. The publication IS notable, due to the controversy, and there'll be a lot of people wanting further background information on it, again, because of the controversy. To complain that the publication isn't "truly" notable, or that it's "only" notable for the controversy and therefore doesn't count, is weaselly and irrelevant. The publication is at the centre of on one of the biggest controversies about copyright, internet activism and law. It's going to be in the "media studies" textbooks, if it isn't already. With that in mind, readers need to be able to find information on this magazine in order to arrive at a sensible evaluation of the issues raised by the controversy. Is the publication part of a larger company? Who's the publisher, with legal liability for any copyright infringements? Is this part of a big media conglomerate, or is it run from someone's back room? Who was reponsible for hiring the offending editor? Is the editor also the owner/publisher? It's difficult to have an informed opinion on the "Cook's Source Controversy" without knowing a bit more about Cook's Source, and given the apparent paucity of outside sources on the magazine, if we can't find the information on Wikipedia, where else are we supposed to look? I agree that the magazine would almost certainly fail the notability criteria if it wasn't for this event, but in //this// universe, the event happened. Putting the publisher info (etc.) onto the "controversy" page would feel awkward, IMO it's more sensible to lodge the magazine's background details on a page that's actually about the magazine (qualified by an intro that points out that the magazine only rose to notability because of the controversial event). ErkDemon (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the comment above, I added additional information about the magazine's history, scope, and size at Cooks Source infringement controversy#Background. The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy. The magazine had been mentioned once in reliable sources available online in the last 13 years of operation. This is a very tiny magazine, more like an advertising flyer or insert in some ways. Jokestress (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy. Please cite any policy or guideline which states that if facts are only published in a reliable source because of one particular event, they are off-limits to articles on subjects other than that event. Because that appears to be what you are implying? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:TreasuryTag, as previously discussed here, the magazine is not notable, but the controversy is. In that discusssion, you wrote: "I'm concerned that by redirecting this company's name to one highly negative (albeit justified!) facet of their identity and history might be stretching WP:NPOV a little too far?" What you describe, and the unilateral action you took in changing this redirect into an article over the objection of several editors, constitute a POV fork. In fact, copying and pasting text and sourcing from the controversy article into this article (which you just did here) is a textbook example of a redundant content fork. Those are the most relevant guidelines, with the underlying policy being WP:NPOV. Jokestress (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fine; I'm a POV warrior. Report me, whatever. But I think you may have a hard time convincing anyone that starting an article on a magazine which was at the centre of a major controversy is non-neutral: on the contrary, the article gives balanced coverage to the controversy. Now please will you explain on which policy or guideline you based your comment, "The only reason we know any of these things is because of the controversy." Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My comment you quote is not based on policy; it is based on fact. This magazine would not have merited an article on November 1, 2010. It does not merit one today, either. The magazine is still not notable. The controversy, however, is very notable. This is a pretty standard practice here. Mohammed al-Madadi is not notable, but the United Airlines Flight 663 incident he caused is. We don't need separate articles on Cooks Source, Judith Griggs, Monica Gaudio, or other involved parties because they are not notable outside the controversy. I don't feel you are a POV warrior; I simply believe you are mistaken regarding policy. Jokestress (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the controversy article. Seriously, the company is not notable outside the controversy and there is no way anyone will ever want to know anything about the company for reasons unrelated to the controversy. ReykYO! 04:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Any content in this article not in the infringement page can simply be added to that page. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see anything beyond normal company reporting (history, scope, activities), none of which are third-party-noted except in relation to the plagiarism controversy. An obituary might contain an independently-sourced and -written full life story of a person, but it alone is little more than that the person existed and did things, not direct notability, and WP:NOTDIR. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The magazine isn't notable, the controversy is. Nothing to merge here.--RadioFan (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable road that is a minor city street. The only Google hits for this Robinson Road are Wikipedia (and mirrors) or locations located on it. The road doesn't inherit notability from the locations along it, and there's been no references provided for the Indian trail claim. (As such a short route, if it was an Indian trail it would not appear in the sources I have that cover the notable trails like the Saginaw Trail or Grand River Avenue.) Imzadi1979→ 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the links above, there are no news sources, and nothing on Google Scholar. The only books are contain reprints of this article through Books LLC. Imzadi1979→ 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article previously linked to Great Trail by piping that link to "Indian trail" in the article. There's no connection between the two according to that other article. That link was the basis for disputing the previous PROD. Imzadi1979→ 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Josette (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I grew up in the area and now live quite close to Robinson Road, although a lovely stretch, I have found nothing that makes it worthy or notable enough for an article. - Josette (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Just another road. Dough4872 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Presumably about a primary school. Possibly fictional, since the article does not indicate where it is, although it does note that the teachers are very friendly. Prod tag removed by User:Colonel Warden, presumably because they believe this is worth keeping in its present state. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). As it stands, I don't even know what country its in. The article has no context, which would usually make it eligible for speedy delete.Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It takes less than 12 seconds to find out if a school in the western world is genuine. This schoool is in Plymouth, England.scope_creep (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. The nominator's comments indicate that he has not followed the deletion process. As user:scope_creep observes, it requires almost no effort to establish the bona fides of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE is not a policy. Nor is it a guideline. It is a fragment of a process documentation. WP:VERIFIABILITY is one of the core policies. You removed the prod tag from the article without doing the estimated "less than 12 seconds" of work to source it, leaving something that can only be described as useless in the context of an encyclopaedia. Yet you characterize my actions as "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", which is what WP:SK criterion 2 says. I suspect your time here is running out thanks to antics like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE is part of WP:AFD which obviously governs this process. Myself, I checked out the sources for the article before editing. The sources were abundant and so the prod was inappropriate, just like the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you sought and found sources for the article, but could not be bothered to add them? Even though you were editing it anyway to remove the prod? Why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Plymouth. Yes, the nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, and the school definitely exists, but there's still no sign of notability. Forcing a keep outcome irrespective of consensus would simply mean that someone would nominate the article again based on notability, which would be silly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plymouth. Merge anything that might be worthwhile. SnottyWongbabble 15:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think any school is notable. It is utterly absurd to have the patchy mess of having some schools in WP, and with others being absent, but equally valid. Keep it and allow it's young editor to expand it, and enable he/she to become part of the WP firmament. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plymouth. The food is amazing, but no reason to treat this any differently than any other primary school in the world. I think that the young editor moved on to other interests several months ago, but he or she is always welcome at Wikipedia. Mandsford 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plymouth#Education does not mention any primary schools. So, it may not even be worth mentioning unless this school is somehow more important than every other one. Also, the article is POV violation and/or original research.(Examples: "the food is amazing" and "the teachers are very friendly") So, no content worth merging. NotARealWord (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I found one set of news stories which should not be used for BLP reasons; they are about an individual who wound up being acquitted. Other than that I found passing mentions of the school, and reminiscences on a personal website. One thing that may be promising is the first book on this Google books search , but Google only gives a snippet of that, so it is hard to tell. So far, I'm not seeing notability here. Cardamon (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
BLP referenced only to IMDB. I could find no independent coverage to verify the subject meets general notability criteria, and the lack of multiple significant roles means he does not meet WP:ENT at this time. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a Filipeno actor/singer smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone—Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus. Favonian (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Four tiny parts in shows, the last one nine years ago, and no independent coverage... Just not notable enough for an encyclopedia. QUTalkQu 22:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
College bus service - no indication of notability, no independent sources. Nothing of significance found on google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There does appear to have been some news coverage of this at local level ([1] and [2] are fairly in-depth), and the Washington Post has also covered it here. Whether that's enough for WP:GNG is open to interpretation. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though the article has only existed for two days, its quality and content are similar to that of other bus articles in the DC area. Some independent sources have been added, and a little notability has been established. JamaUtil (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't meet the GNG of significant coverage (Media mentions are trivial). If other bus articles are like this, they should also be removed. (This information is better placed on Wikitravel). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Website states that "Shuttle-UM is one of the nation’s largest University transit services. With a fleet of over 60 vehicles" That makes it larger than many municipal transit systems. Give it a chance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage in Highbeam Research, and enough to clear notability. Will add some later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six reliable sources added from Highbeam Research. I believe that notability has been cleared. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a former student at the University, so my opinion is biased, but I think with the addition of the sources mentioned, that the page meets notability criteria. Amit ► 14:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not Delete, security and development is an emerging field of study (as is Human Security, Human Rights, etc), the article contains numerous references to well recognized research and websites that discuss the issue, this is an encyclopedia quality article. User: hsutton521 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced essay, not an encyclopedia article. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically an opinion piece and should be deleted per WP:OR. Peacock (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been updated to include references; what are the next steps in making sure it doesnt get deleted? -g323, not so wikipedia savvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you need to read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not accept "original research" which includes the synthesis of other material to create a new theory. So, references alone will not solve the problem. QUTalkQu 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thank you for your response. This is not original research. There is a wide body of research on Security and development. I am very confused by this whole process. How can I prove that this is not original research if not by providing references? The whole code/citation system is very conplex. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that should be done at this point to remove the deletion warning? I believe it has been establish that:
This is not an essay
This is not a "term"
This is not an opinion piece
This is not original research
It is indeed an encyclopedia article.
Can we please remove the deletion tab? I appreciate and look forward to your feedback - g323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by G323 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wait for the AfD to end. — Timneu22 ·talk 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those all seem to be primary sources. Can you provide any secondary sources reporting on the topic? Yworo (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The accusations seem to include bad faith and make no sense, as some editors have pointed out earlier in this afd. Longevitydude (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article is muddled and conflates several concepts within the field of security studies. "Security and Development" is not a paradigm (such as Democratic Peace Theory), nor is it a separate field of study (such as Human Rights or Sustainable Development). While I applaud the author's efforts, most of this article probably belongs in a different article, such as securitization (international relations), as an example of the securitization of economic development or sustainable development. To call this WP:OR might even be a stretch, as has already been pointed out, since there are no secondary references or general textbooks that feature "Security and Development" as an emerging paradigm of security studies.99.137.202.91 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actor with one credit to his name, a bit part in a movie 40 years ago. WuhWuzDat 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreferenced article & highly contentious content, dubious notability. E. Fokker (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article is woeful, and needs to be stripped back to the bare minimum. However, the Section B does seem to have have broad news coverage, including in the bbc [3]. I could be happy to delete until someone is prepared to write an article based on sourced information. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article need fairly extensive, it's notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSection B means millions of things, is this the primary topic, or should it be a dab page, or redirect to some other article? (which if this article is kept, would be renamed with a disambiguated title) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the main contributor to the article Section B, I will take the points made above and answer them accordingly -
Original objector and proposer for deletion E. Fokker - Ironically, this objector uses a username of a "highly contentious" nature - already the subject of debate on their usertalk page. A hypocritical stance then one might say? Whilst I agree that the article could be better referenced through notes at the foot of it in relation to the external media links etc.. the point remains though the article may be uncomfortable for some, I am curious to know what, if any knowledge E Fokker has on the subject (example being the removal of a statement of fact on 5th November). E. Fokker is probably concerned with the numerous acts of vandalism that have taken place in the last couple of months (dubious notability). This user is too - and these acts have been removed. E. Fokker's comments come over as personal distaste for the article rather than subjective criticism alone. On that basis there are no grounds for deletion but grounds for improvement in the article, as mentioned in this paragraph.
Clovis Sangrail - This username's assertion that the article is "woeful" and needs to be stripped back is a highly personal view and not worthy of a reply. I ask the question - why does this user make personal attacks on the content of an article when I suspect they have little or no knowledge/interest on the subject matter that is indeed of much interest to many people?! I am pleased however that this user recognises that even the great and mighty BBC (the most authoritative source in the land no less!!) recognise the Section B, and as above I would be comfortable improving the references/sources and links in the article where possible.
Scope_creep - This user acknowledges that in order for the article to be notable it needs to be the length that it is.
76.66.203.138 - The user is correct in saying that Section B can mean many things, and so I am comfortable with the clarification of the title if the article is kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about an economist that doesn't establish notability. In fact, it isn't clear from the article what the main claim to notability is as it covers his academic learning, followed by jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. It would appear that his notability would rest on his publications. The article lists 4 publications. Going by the ISBN through Google Books we have:
Keep Keep until somebody can read German. I suspect he notable as the books are scientific and rigorous. A couple of the books seem to be widely referenced, although I don't know how notable that make him. Err on the side of caution, as the article is well written.scope_creep (talk) 23:343, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It needs sources to be kept, bare URLS, anything. We beg for your assistance!--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can read German, but that doesn't really help because I can't find any sources to read. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also spent quite some time searching for sources for this article without coming up with any WP:RS and I can read German. I don't believe that WP:N is established. The article was tagged as an UBLP in 2008 and has been sitting there ever since without sources being found. Serious attempts to source the article have been made by more than one editor in the past month without success. As others have said unless the RS can now be found and applied to the article, the time has come when it has to go.--Plad2 (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Plad2. I disagree with the above comment that the quality of the prose should influence if this article is kept or not.--Banana (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I can find constitutes significant coverage, and I'm satisfied that Plad2 would have found anything half decent in German. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep – He has been featured on national TV and radio, and according to the Toronto Star and Global National he received international attention for his video "You Got Beef?". I added some citations. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly not an A7. bad nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete Not done anything to be notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Professional footballer who plays for a professional club. Footballgy (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment saying "professional" over and over again does not make this player notable! GiantSnowman 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need to be like that with me, I was merely stating a fact. Footballgy (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not achieved levels required by WP:NFOOTBALL and coverage is merely sports journalism that is general in nature, nothing of significance to show he is generally notable. --ClubOranjeT 10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BAND. While they are signed to a notable record label, they've only released one album (WP:BAND requires 2). Although a couple of members have played in other bands of minor note, the musicians by themselves have not established individual notability and notability is not inherited. - Burpelson AFB✈ 18:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete half way there. next album they'll be right. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:V, WP:N. Can't find any reliable secondary sources on which to source this long-unreferenced BLP. j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on him either. The Modern Arab Association records only go back to 2000, and Google Books don't have anything, nor Ghits. I still suspect is all true, which would may make him notable, but not hard evidence. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Topic of the article is not really that notable; Other than the Bears-Packers rivalry, the Bears-Vikings or Bears-Lions rivalry is not that storied. The articles lack proper sources, and content to describe the actual history of the rivalry.. It does not present any third party material or unique content to merit its own article outside of the NFC North article. StarScream1007 ►Talk 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article notes, "It is a secondary rivalry, meaning that each team has a bigger rivalry than this." At most, one can say that the two teams have been in the same division for many years, hence they face each other at home and away in the regular season, but it's not a storied rivalry. Mandsford 21:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some quality sources would turn this into a keep, but I'm not finding any. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced minor league player whose career seems to be over, having never reached the majors. No signs of notability; even if part of a 40 man roster at one point, we have no proof of that now. Contested PROD a while back. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proof he was on a 40 man roster here. We have tended to see people who spent even a day on a 40 man roster as notable, but it's not a set in stone policy and is worthy of a full discussion here. I'm undecided at this point. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Proven to be part of a 40 man roster per above. Pro career seems to be over as of 2008 though in the Golden Baseball League, so I'd say the prospect of him making the majors has dropped to 0%. Vodello (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although he was part of the 40 man roster, there is no evidence of him even pitching a part of an inning or making a game appearance. None of the baseball reference sites show any major league stats for him. Coverage of him consists of roster move announcements and routine sports coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the "40 man roster" idea as consistent with WP:ATHLETE, which is already fairly loose. However, WP is not time-based nor speculative, and it is not relevant whether his pro career is over. Matchups 03:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Dear Anthony, I saw you deleted Yael Meyer's page because of copyright infringement. I am a personal friend of Yael and used her webpage content with her explicit permission. How can I take te page back online? Thank you for any help. Gottlieb (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anthony, Yael has just sent an e-mail to [email protected] and [email protected](30 minutes ago), authorizing the publication of her bio and photo in wikipedia. Gottlieb (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable musician in Chile. Diego Grez (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear Diego, as you can see reading the article, Yael is notable in the USA, two of her songs were aired in popular TV series. She's also notable in Chile, 3 of her songs are part of the "Que pena tu vida" chilean film, on air now in chilean cinemas. (Most popular chilean movie in 2010 to the moment). Gottlieb (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Permission for the text has been verified via OTRS, so copyright shouldn't be an issue in this discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know and don't care if the article subject is notable or not, but either way, this should be subject to WP:BLPPROD rules too - you have 10 days reference it with an independent reliable source or it will be deleted.The-Pope (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced blp, nothing with refs that supports notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - There is not a clear claim to notability and the one cite in local publication does not establish it. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any criterion we recognize. RayTalk 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears is speculation. I will copy my arguments from the discussion site.
She passes porn criteria Wikipedia:PORNBIO in groundbreaking or blockbuster featureBig Tits at School 1&2 (AVN Award winning) and This Ain’t...-series from Hustler. The article has 6 international wikis, so that´s a prove she is well-known around the world.
Look how much Google hits she has to see the relevance...1,46 million sites.
She is well-known and famous in the industry, has multible articles (+100) on AVN.com, the hoster of the AVN Award, 45 scenes for Brazzers (2nd behind Shyla StylezLink) and she worked for all big networks and companies. She hasn´t won a award yet, but Audrey Bitoni and Jenaveve Jolie also.
Just look at the 6 international wiki articles. It´s curious, that she passes relevance criteria in these wikis, even if they are harder, than in the english wiki, right?
So these are all facts to Keep the article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – So let's look at each one of your claims.
Just because a series has won an AVN Award, it is not necessarily a ground breaking. I find nothing in the article that supports the series that mentions it as a "groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". So no she does not meet this criteria. BTW - popularity has little or nothing to do with establishing Wikipedia based notability.
The name "Rachel Roxx" in quotes (as well as her real name "Rachel Roxxx") has far less than the number of Ghits than you indicate. If one removes the duplicate or similar Ghits the number is closer to 650. However, Ghits are irrelevant. Per WP:GOOGLE, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability."
If she has significant coverage in articles and they meet WP:RS criteria, please add add few to the article. Perhaps that would sway the discussion to a "Keep" resolution. IT should be noted that AVN.com may not be considered to be mainstream media. As far as the two other "stars" you mentioned, one has "...received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" and one has been featured in Penthouse.
The article in the other projects have no relevance here. Each article must stand on its own merits.
The reason she has so many images is that some has uploaded them. If you note few are used in any articles.
Your reasons hardly support the keeping of the article.ttonyb (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her real name in porn is Rachel Roxxx, but I didn´t use that name, because I knew someone would want to speedy delete it. So click on the Google link. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As stated above, Ghits are irrelevant. Per WP:GOOGLE, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability." ttonyb (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it´s an indicator of prominence of a person. By the way AVN has news in it´s name, and it´s the best news source for porn in the web, so you can´t say it´s not relevant I think. So my intention was, if you add all points together, you can see the relevance of the person. And my oppinion is she meets this criteria. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G4; see edit history of Rachel Roxxx which shows afd. author admits he recreated article with different spelling to circumvent speedy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete was declinded by admin, view version history! This is a completly new article with new sources in it.--(talk)--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just to be clear, the article was denied a Speedy Deletion on the basis of a {{db-person}}, not a {{db-repost}}. ttonyb (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutaculartalk 06:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are entirely reliable or independent from the subject. This appears to be WP:VANISPAM, as there's no indication why the company is important or significant. — Timneu22 ·talk 16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was mentioned in the New York Times as having 3,500 local service providers in its database. That's 3500 people who may search Wikipedia wanting to know more about it. In addition, it raised $1.1 million in capital in a difficult time for start-ups. This means it will probably grow and become more important to Wikipedia readers. Last, it has excellent web presence. It got a write-up in a second newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger. Last, I do not see how the source New York Times isn't independent or reliable; the newspaper has a history and reputation of reliable reporting, arguably the best reputation in the USA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. The article reads like a press release: SkillSlate’s technology ensures service providers’ pages surface highly in search engine queries, driving greater web visibility for their services and helping more potential customers find them.". There is no indication why this is important or significant. — Timneu22 ·talk 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does too matter. It's important and significant because the New York Times chose to write about it. The New York Times doesn't choose to write about stuff that's unimportant or insignificant. If 3500 people in the database each have 10 to 20 customers. Now we're talking 35,000+ people who may be interested in this; and if it expands nationally like it says, it will be increasingly important to all readers of Wikipedia. A NY Times editor saw impact on tens of thousands of their readers -- a new information source for people needing dogs walked, windows washed, tutoring for kids, as well as a new way for one-person businesses to market themselves, new employment opportunities for NYorkers seeking jobs, a Silicon Valley type business in the Big Apple. And consider that SkillSlate is a competitor to NY Times classified advertising, which suggests again the impartiality of the NY Times. In short, a NY Times editor deemed this story was notable, important, worthy of ink; another newspaper (Newark Star-Ledger) agreed. About the wording -- yes I agree it does sound kind of advertise-y and press-release-y and you're right -- I fixed it..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the article does nothing more than to say "this company exists". I'm not closing the AfD; others will have to chime in. — Timneu22 ·talk 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough, let's see what others think, but my sense is that you are coming around to agreeing with me. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've never needed to hire a dogwalker, tutor, handyman, DJ, painter, mover? You've never been a dogwalker, tutor, handyman, DJ, painter, mover? I speak from experience -- when I was ten, I was a dogwalker; got paid $3 per walk. Only had one client. Could have used SkillSlate back then to announce my valuable dogwalking services to the whole wide woild. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times is a great source. How can that be argued?Taylorrockette (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Tomwsulcer.It's notable with significant sources. scope_creep (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. This is yet another search engine manipulation business (According to a website description, SkillSlate helps the pages of service providers surface more prominently in search engine queries) using Wikipedia to manipulate search engines. References given are entirely routine announcements of funding or local events that do not come close to meeting the business notability guideline. Article is advertising from beginning to end. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. I don't understand your argument. All businesses including SkillSlate try to get the best web presence they can, whether it's IBM, BMC Software, Exxon. SkillSlate's particular business is matching up small business owners such as tutors or dog walkers with customers. To do this, it seeks to enhance its web presence as well as workers in its database. This is perfectly fine. Your term "manipulation" suggests it is somehow doing this deviously or illegally; it isn't; to make such a claim, you need to prove this. Further, you claim that references are merely "routine announcements"; since when is raising $1.1 million a "routine announcement"? That's a lot of money. Consider the business notability guideline:
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -- Isn't the New York Times the epitome of a reliable independent secondary source? Of course it is. Test satistied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. -- SkillSlate has a strong regional presence in the New York metropolitan area and plans to expand nationally in the next few years. Test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself ... have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Sources ... include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles... -- Again, the NY Times" and "Star-Ledger" are both newspapers. Again, test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a classic case of someone looking into a crystal ball. "Plans to expand nationally" doesn't cut it for notability, and the remaining references are essentially routine announcements in the New York Times. We don't give everyone who ends up in the police blotter an article, nor do we give every single corporation in New York an article; the New York Times and the Star-Ledger have mentioned thousands of these places at various times, and only a small percentage have articles. I'm not seeing any real claim to notability; just being mentioned in the New York Times and the Star-Ledger (and I'm from Connecticut, I'm very familiar with both) doesn't mean it stands out, just that it exists. If this gets kept, we should start putting boxes (with credit to User:Herostratus) that say something like this:
This article about an obscure Internet company in New York may not adequately describe the color of its cubicle walls. Please add this information if you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself doing business there.
Rebuttal. The New York Times isn't a business directory. It doesn't list every firm in New York City. Rather, it publishes stories about only a few hundred firms each year. One of the few firms that editors selected to write about was SkillSlate. The story wasn't a mere "mention" but a solid story about an interesting firm.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't say any of this; it just says that it's an internet business, like all of the other ones. It doesn't explain why it's notable at all. And while the New York Times may not be a directory, they also have to fill their pages with something; this means that they will frequently write on run of the mill organizations, resulting in companies such as this being written about. It doesn't do anything special, nor does it have any distinct features, ipso facto it's not notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the crystal ball point, I just realized that the initial edit of this article says "new startup" company. Clearly that means they haven't done anything yet, and that this article intends to be promotional. — Timneu22 ·talk 10:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the sneering tone of the comment that refers to SkillSlate as an "obscure" company or the snarky "there's no indication why the company is important or significant" beg the questions:
Obscure to whom? and
Important/significant to whom?
I wonder, if SkillSlate were a company that offered a snazzy, high-tech gadget that was excellent in theory but was a bit of a disappointment in practice, would the critics recoil with equivalent horror at its "insignificance?" In fact, SkillSlate is innovative in several ways:
It is hyper-local, which is an emerging area in search--one that has proven elusive to the big players.
SkillSlate concentrates on relatively low-tech services. It is approachable and simple to use. Internet adoption by workers in these fields is historically slower than it is for many higher-tech occupations.
For the most part, people in such occupations have had to rely on word-of-mouth, literal bulletin boards, and the like for marketing. SkillSlate makes marketing online easy and accessible, providing new ways to increase the scope and vigor of their marketing efforts without sacrificing a lot of time during which they need to be out there earning a living.
Non-employer businesses (those with no employees) make up the vast majority of US businesses. Thus, SkillSlate fosters several worthwhile goals.
These include:
Increasing the accessibility and usability of online tools for people from all walks of life;
Bringing the power of the 'net to modestly-paid, independent practitioners (whose jobs cannot be outsourced to distant lands);
Helping those who hire them to support the economy without buying more and more unnecessary 'stuff;'
Helping those who don't know where to find these services to do so without spending person-years leafing through paper publications.
I do not live in New York, but even from the not-so-vast distance of Philadelphia, I can see that this company is something special. Its simple appearance is deceptive in a good sense, because it is clear that a huge amount of thought, planning, and preparation went into its design and implementation. Auroraz7 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So it's important because you said so. Strong argument. — Timneu22 ·talk 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to rebuttal. Yes it is a strong argument. Auroraz is explaining why the NY Times considered the SkillSlate story to be notable, and the reasons above (ie hyper-local, low-tech, online marketing etc etc) are valid for the NY Times editors just as it is for us having this discussion. SkillSlate is a notable company. It belongs in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) First of all, before you use a phrase, you should know what it means. Please read what begging the question is; it has a completely different definition. Secondly, the article doesn't say why its subject is notable; it just says it's a corporation. Read my comment above, I don't feel like repeating myself, especially if you don't want to listen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to the various criticisms of my POV on keeping the SkillSlate listing: This is a point of clarification. The reason why I commented on the care with which the SkillSlate business was assembled and presents itself is directly related to the fact that non-employer businesses (this is terminology used by the Census Bureau) make up such a large proportion of all businesses in the US, yet few web-based companies have gone after the segment explicitly and/or have been able to raise outside funding to do so. This make the company distinctive and noteworthy. One more thing: I fail to grasp why you feel compelled to differ with others in such a mocking, disrespectful manner. If you disagree, just disagree. You don't need to put people down, criticize their grasp of the language etc. Your derisive manner reflects poorly on only one person: you. Auroraz7 (talk)
I had a rather congenial discussion with Tomwsulcer on my talkpage about this; the box I made was an attempt at humor (see here for my inspiration), but came off as more abrasive than I intended. How that happened is explained again on my talkpage; I'd rather not go into detail here. As to the second part; the phrase begging the question has a very specific definition, and the way you used it above didn't match the definition. I didn't/don't know if you're familiar with what the formal logical (in the field of logic) definition of begging the question is, so I pointed you to the article on it. It wasn't meant to be insulting, just informative. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like a SkillSlate owner is editing the article. That's not my doing. That's against WP's rules regarding WP:COI. Me no approve.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Child articles should be independently notable, and have enough specific significant information to form a reasonable, if short, article.
Common information should not be duplicated - refer to the main article for any common details of the process, events etc.
In the event that the main article becomes unwieldy this should be resolved by splitting off the list of cases with details into "List of habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees" and further splitting the list as necessary.
– RichFarmbrough, 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply] 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that this article is about a notable subject. Article lists no independent sources about this case, and Google searches (Books, News) didn't reveal any either, nor of its new name v. Obama. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also nominated for the exact same reason a number of very similar articles. All of these have no independent results in Google News or Goole Books and less than 100 distinct hits in Google, none at first sight from reliable independent sources. I have not included any similar cases where there looked to be more info available, as these either warrant an article or need a separate AfD. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I did not review each nominated article, all of these would seem to be habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. There are, as the saying goes, common questions of fact and law in all of these lawsuits. A selective merge might be in order here, and any facts unique to each individual's suit can be noted in a list. The topic generally is obviously capable of supporting an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass delete, with three or four exceptions for the cases that have resulted in decisions at the United States Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit. I've been complaining about these articles for two years, and they still haven't come up to standard. These articles are dozens and dozens of forks that will require identical edits that have never been made. For example, they've all been misnamed for nearly two years: it should be Bostan v. Obama. They largely consist of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I agree with Ihcoyc that it's appropriate to merge any unique RS content to habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. THF (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, we don't have the sourcing for an article on each of these cases, and the contents are duplicative enough to make a list or combined article worthwhile. Are any of these worth redirecting? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legal cases should only have articles if they have been reported in independent sources. Even then, they must be notable, usually because they set a precedent. We have for example the article Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which among all these cases was the one that was notable. TFD (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No real, independent notability to be found for these. The subject mater in general is certain;y notable, but the individual court cases rarely are, unless one sets a precedent or is noted in multiple WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given these cases have a common theme, there is no reason why a list article can't summarize them, is there? Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree entirely with JClemens on this one. All of these should be referred to in an article about the Guantanamo Bay suits filed after Boumediene v. Bush was issued. If one of them were to set a legal precedent, like Boumedienne, that would be notable. None of these suits are individually notable, even if the precedent that allowed them is notable. If I had my way, I'd create individual articles for each of the persons who were killed on 9/11, but few of them were individually notable, and there's a specific bar against using Wikipedia to call attention to a person, whether it's a memorial or any other belief that someone's suffering deserves a page. Mandsford 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt the usefulness of these as redirects, but as they would not hurt/harm, my delete can be taken as a "would not oppose a merger" if need be at the final tally. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As individual articles, I don't see how they meet general notability criteria. It seems reasonable, though, that if there are notable legal issues, arguments, etc. common to all of them that one article could encompass such info. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Geo Swan mass created not only these articles but also a large number of similar non notable articles about this topic. He has moved some of them back to his user space after other editors explained the problem to him. He did not take action to clean up the rest of the problematic articles. His mass creation of non notable articles makes it very difficult to impossible for our reader to find or create articles about the interesting and notable part of the story. This could be seen as WP:NOTSOAPBOX. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the articles on the individuals in question for those who have them, with a redirect. For individuals where there is no article, the article here should be retitled to the name, and used to start one. There is not really any point in doing these separately, but the filing of the case adds to the notability of the individual. I am very disappointed to see this being done as an AfD, rather than attempting a discussion of this first, because I think an appropriate merge could have been agreed on. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, the info that could possibly be merged to the articles about the indiciduals, was already long present in those articles. This means that there is nothing left to merge. But I am not surprised that you are "very disappointed", the opposite would have surprised me here. Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Good faith contributors can get tunnel vision, and make contributions that slowly start lapsing from policy, without realizing it. I started these articles, and I acknowledge, due to tunnel vision, some of these habeas cases do not merit individual articles after all. However, I continue to believe others do.
Readers who look at these cases reach different opinions as to how many merit separate articles. Some readers think none of the habeas petitions merit separate articles. Other readers acknowledge that the habeas petitions that made all their way to the US Supreme Court merit separate articles. Still other readers acknowledge that there are other significant cases that merit coverage. It has seemed to me that the more genuine attention readers give to the habeas cases, the more they recognize satisfy our notability requirements.
The nomination states there is "No evidence that this article is about a notable subject... Google searches (Books, News) didn't reveal any either, nor of its new name v. Obama. Fails WP:N."
I believe this is incorrect. I found multiple WP:RS that cite, quote or summarize the judge's ruling in Bostan v. Obama, as significant, due to his comments on the admissability of hearsay evidences, and as to how much benefit of the doubt the Government should be given for modifying the rules of evidence based on national security concerns.
I have included some of those WP:RS in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request -- Merge seems to be the consensus. I request the closing admin give clear guidance as to the steps anyone should go through who produces additional references, and unmerges other articles from the merge target. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees as suggested above. The issue of Habeus petitions is itself notable, but they should be placed in one article because of the lack of notability of each individual case. I also take some issue with spinning these cases as being notable for their evidentiary noteworthiness as stated above. Habeus matters are adminsitrative in nature, and the rules of evidence, as I have explained ad nauseum, of a Court of Law differ wildy from administrative process, which allows the introduction of hearsay evidence so long as there is a reasonable indicia of reliability. Thus, the Judge's ruling goes to already existent US law, it is not really noteworthy as ground-breaking in that regard.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have told us you are a lawyer, in real life. But, as I understand the wikipedia's policies, any real world background we have in the topics we work on, on the wikipedia, is simply not relevant. It is not relevant because the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, neither you or I are WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are based on WP:RS. If WP:RS regard Walton's rulings as sufficiently notable that they cover them, then they are notable. Most of the WP:RS I found that cited, quoted, summarized or commented on Walton's comments in Bostan v. Obama are also lawyers. So, why should we regard the published opinions of recognized legal experts, on the notability of Bostan v. Obama, as significant, while we discount yours?
The authors of those papers are sufficiently well respected and recognized to get published. If and when you have some papers published on these topics we can cite your opinions too.
The authors of those papers are identifiable. Their professional reputations will suffer if they what they write is unsupportable, or soon superceded. They have to be careful. The wikipedia allows contributors to be fairly anonymous. There is no real impact on your professional career if the opinions you offer here are weak. Really, there is no real impact on you if the opinions you offered here were not your true professional opinion.
No offense, but we don't know you are a lawyer, or if you are, whether you are a tax attorney, or a real estate attorney, whose opinions on habeas matters, or war crimes, are hardly worth any more than a random guy in the street.
WP:RS regarded Walton's comments in Bostan v. Obama as worth covering, so they are worth covering. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resposne I believe you have been warned to refrain from making personal attacks by IQinn in the past, yet for some unknown reason, you continue to do so whenever someone proposes one of your pages you created for deletion. However, as you appear willing to discuss this matter, your own source does not support your claim. Firstly, your own claims above make a number of legal conclusion that, if we follow your own logic, can be provided the same disdain as you have shown mine. You have also not refuted the premise of my recommendation, and have instead launched into an uncivil personal attack rather than to point out why I am wrong. Moving to Waxman, a piece complaining about standards of proof for habeus cases regarding GTMO detainees based on "preponderance of the evidence" to hold a suspect, rather than "clear and convincing evidence" as advocated by counsel for detainees, you're simply wrong. This "standard" is one of proof to sustain holding the individual, it is not a standard of evidence as you claim. The article at p. 13 again addresses this, and again addresses the standard of proof. In conclusion, you have mixed up your standards rather badly, and the case does not have the "Evidentiary" value you claim, as further confirmed by your own source. The evidence is not what is at issue, instead the standard of proof based ON that evidence is what is at issue. Even an American layman would know that. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. The whole reason these cases had any airtime was political in nature. They werent really noteworthy as stand-alone cases. In any other environment, you would have never heard of them. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable into Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I agree with Sandstein and Jclemens, the majority of the articles discuss much of the same content. While differences do exist, there isn't enough content out there to merit separate articles; the content should be merged into a single list and not spread across multiple pages.--resident(talk) 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--resLaozispeak 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to be found whatsoever to confirm that the two albums by this artist exist now or in the near future. The same goes for the artist Young Eclypse, who does not technically have his own WP article, but instead has one in a userspace at User:KaosDX. I suspect either a hoax or very wishful advance promotion for a kid who has not been noticed by anyone except the person creating these articles. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a career that has not started and albums that do not yet exist. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, either a hoax or something some kid made in mom's basement. Per common sense if these get deleted then the User:KaosDX page should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NMUSIC, COI, etc. tedder (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget the following other pages, which should all be included under this AFD:
Speedy Delete db-album. artist has no page. links to user pages should be removed on sight. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, nonnotable unpublished and nonexistent comic, but it would be a webcomic if ever published. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Appears to be unverifiable (WP:V), with no claim of notability (WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete quote from the article: "The character is not yet noticed, but as of 2011, she will shine!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, youth/amateur athlete, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Autobiographical article about a 15-year-old goalkeeper where the team he plays for doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. No other demonstration of notability. roleplayer 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it was only after I nominated it that I noticed it was a BLP prod rather than a normal prod, so I should have just reverted the removal of the tag. All the same this discussion is now open so I think it's best to sort this out this way. -- roleplayer 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this person satisfies WP:ATHLETE, unless someone can prove he's played at the fully professional level. Also fails WP:BIO due to lack of coverage in RS. P. D. CookTalk to me! 14:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable athlete playing in a teen league. Rhetorically, does every high school athlete get the benefit of a week-long AFD discussion? JNW (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: speedy deletion was declined as it was deemed that enough information had been presented to clear the criteria for A7. -- roleplayer 15:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::*Comment And that's what I'm questioning above. JNW (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Timneu22 ·talk 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted or moved. No third-party coverage or assertions of importance. — Timneu22 ·talk 13:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added third-party coverage sources, including one from InfoQ. However, I created this article because someone created a whole chapter about it in the main Android article. I deleted it from this article, because it had nothing to do there, but I thought that it might be worthy of an article in itself (there are a lot of references on this project, mainly by it's old name, on the web). Hervegirod (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really small article. I'd argue its content should be a section within the main Android article. Am I missing something? — Timneu22 ·talk 14:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Eminently notable runtime interface for a device where 10's of thousands of Android developers will no doubt be using. scope_creep (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Well worth an article.[reply]
Operating systems are large and complex entities. The most complex construct that man has ever built. It would take 10's of thousands of WP articles to describe Android in sufficient detail for the lay person to understand how it works. Therefore a seperate article for this interface is ideal. scope_creep (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scripting Layer for Android is not part of the core Android OS. So I don't think it's would be good to put it back in the main article. It only clutters the already very large Android article there. Hervegirod (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per scope_creep's good explanation of the size and significance issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only two opinions, but I agree that the coverage as currently referenced in the article does not suffice for notability. Can be userfied for improvement on demand. Sandstein 08:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, independent coverage is lacking, and I can't find anything to establish notability. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability for this book. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur, no evidence of notability. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, article starts: "Introducing the new term." NawlinWiki (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as "Poorly written, unreferenced, non-notable neologism."
Prod was removed by IP address without improving the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90, and also because the article is unreferenced and written in an unencyclopedic style. It seems to be WP:MADEUP. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Introducing the new term. Booze exchange party noun; 1. An occasion on which people assemble, each bringing with them a (preferebly personal) alcoholic beverige, which will be shared with the other people present during the course of the evening. Prior art seems not to have been investigated before inventing this neologism. I can't think of any speedy categories for this, but it may well be sublimated upon exposure to sunlight. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing much to say about this topic that isn't already covered at death and murder; what's left is little more than a dictionary definition. PowersT 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any prospect for expanding this beyond a dictionary definition. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew there must be an article that didn't have the implications of murder. Thanks. PowersT 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an editorial on finding a more positive way to refer to homicide, and there's no reason for anyone to hang out the merge tags on the big toe of this one. "Causing death is ending the life of an individual. Killing generally has an equivalent definition, but is often used synonymously with murder and may be disregarded in a neutral point of view due to negative associations." Technically, one is causing death when spraying a can of Lysol, but that's not said in advertisements due to negative associations. Essentially, it's been done already, though the information in the homicide article hasn't yet been "done to death". Add musings there. Mandsford 13:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I intended to fill this article with ethical aspects of killing, which aren't appropriately covered by existing articles (which rather deal with the legal aspects). However, I do not currently have the time to expand it to the point of justification of existence, and I can recreate it again at the time I do. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the article you want to write, you should title it accordingly. Or start by expanding the existing articles to cover missing aspects. PowersT 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Indeed, killing should perhaps have been the article title. Naming it ethical aspects of killing would imply that you could find a main article about killing in general, but there is apparently no such article, as, again, existing ones have a predetermined legal scope. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is homicide. If its scope is too limited for your tastes, you should work to improve the article, not start a separate article with a different POV. That's called a POV fork. PowersT 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If one disregards the many invalid comments, such as those that simply refer to the previous discussion or that assert "it's notable" or "it's not notable", or similar, we are left with a very few valid opinions: those that directly address and evaluate the number and quality of the sources used in this article. And these few opinions don't agree with each other, so it's a no consensus outcome again. Sandstein 08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my previous nomination stands, previous arguments claimed AfD nomination happened too soon after article creation well 5 months down the track, 3 of the 5 sources merely confirm Azerbaijan has a non resident embassy in London. neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed the link (it didn't work because it was an external hyperlink formatted as a wikilink). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The consulate of Denmark in Baku appears to be an Honorary Consulate (see dkconsulate.az ) but has passport issuing facilities, which seems a bit odd for an hon con. Possibly acts as a post box for applications considered elsewhere? SpartazHumbug! 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again Its only been a few months, so the same guy shouldn't be nominating it again simply because he didn't get his way the first time around. Seven said keep last time, one merge, and two agreed with you to delete it. The arguments made last time for keeping it, are still valid now. [8]. DreamFocus 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again - Result of the previous AfD was no consensus. 4 months have passed and virtually no edits have been made to the article in that time. Renominating it is perfectly acceptable. What's not acceptable is this article. The relationship between these two countries is far too tenuous to support a real article. I say we WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWongconfess 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly use tidying up and expanding but a quick google search turned up enough evidence of some sort of relationship between the two countries; there's also a brief Azerbaijani (sp?) news article here that isn't (yet) used as a ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for finding that link, its been added to the article.
Keep as a standard Wikipedia almanac entry. Almanac entries are one of the pillars of Wikipedia and common outcomes show them to be inherently notable, smaller ones are merged into longer lists for each country where there is just a line or two of text, but this one is big enough to be a stand alone almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I resent the waste of time. This second nomination is A) Too soon. B) By same guy who didn't get his way the first time around.
Last time - Seven said keep - one said merge, and two said delete. The arguments made last time for keeping it, are still valid now. A) It is a notable topic. B) Almanac entries are one of the pillars of Wikipedia. C) Google search turned up enough evidence of a relationship between the two countries. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ridiculous nom. Afd is not for try, try, try again if you dont get your way. Outback the koala (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you haven't at all explained your argument. I've argued lack of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the [9] from the Danish Min. of Foreign Affairs showing that, although its a low priority, there is still ongoing work between the two states. The IMS work isnt too bad Outback the koala (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a great background from the Azeri side [10] which would be a great addition to the article. Look a little before making these nominations. I'm usually a deletionist myself, but come on. Outback the koala (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and have you found third party coverage ie independent of the subject? eg major newspapers or news services? LibStar (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article that provides appropriate sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and as the claim to noteability has been further strenghted with a media article focussing purely on the relationship just added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the two countries in question do not even have full bilateral diplomatic relations, the sources cited are largely trivial (and/or primary source) -- and do not establish the existence of a substantive diplomatic relationship, and in fact one of them suggested that such a diplomatic relationship was only 'prospective' (WP:CRYSTAL). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've undone a non-admin "keep" closure of this AfD per WP:NACD: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Sandstein 08:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No clear notability demonstrated. His father was notable, but notability is not inherited. Seems a fairly successful businessman, who has not really caught the eye of reliable sources to-date. Happy to remove nomination if multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources are brought, but all those in the article currently are either trivial, non reliable or not referring to him. Dweller (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new reference which is a PDF file with newspaper/magazine articles about Nick Winton (MBA)!
LazarusHUN (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His father is notable, but I can't see anything which makes him notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This character could and should be covered at the main article Life_of_Riley_(TV_series). However, the entire contents are already covered there, and there are no sources in this article whatsoever (even the IMDB link is broken). The title is an implausible search term, which makes it unsuitable as a redirect. Therefore there is nothing to be done with this other than to delete it. ReykYO! 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources exist to WP:verify notability of this TV character. Safe to say it fails the WP:GNG for what's notable enough to belong here. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 nonnotable webcontent, likely g3 hoax, article on (14-year-old) director deleted as a7 for lack of assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited. Google searches for all three produce nothing except Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Existence is unverifiable, and there is no evidence of notability if they do exist. The associated article Project Rooster has already been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project rooster. (Note: the author of the articles has a history of creating articles with no evidence of notability, several of which have been deleted, and others are subject to AfD now. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreamer (2010 film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty (2010 film).) Most of these articles (probably all of them) relate to Project Rooster. It looks very much like advertising. In at least one other AfD it has been suggested that we may be dealing with a hoax.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Appears likely to be a hoax. PowersT 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Project" itself would probably be sued by Star Trek copyright and brand name holders. Wolfview (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll believe it when I see it. Mandsford 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no sources, no indication of notability, WP:CRYSTAL and possible hoax.
Delete all. No sources given, no sources found.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Totally unsourced, no hits in Google, and the originator of all these pages is now blocked for serial hoaxing.--Surv1v4l1st(Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just as was done for Project rooster.[11] Even with the best of good faith and in performing a diligent search, there is absolutely nothing to support this article.... not even in blogs or non-rs. It is a speediable G3 hoax... and not even a believable one. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this when looking up Lindsey Vonn to see who in the hell she was and was astounded to see we had an article called "Lindsey Vonn in 2010." First of all please note that there are at least a couple of other articles along these lines (Rafael Nadal in 2010 and Roger Federer in 2010) but rather than bundling them all in this AfD I'm just putting forward the Vonn one for deletion to see what folks think and we can go from there.
I'm not sure how widespread these "living person in 2010" articles are but I think they're a terrible idea for several reasons (and are quite different from general topic articles like "2010 in politics" or "2010 in reggae").
A) This takes splitting off content and summary style to absurd heights, as a person with a lengthy career could have 50 such articles. The relationship between these articles and the main bio article would be a strange one--either every section of the main article would be a summary style of one year or we would group a number of years together in an arbitrary fashion. Neither of these would serve readers well.
B) Calendar years are a rather strange way to divide up a person's life. Sticking with sporting figures, for American football players who make the playoffs, we'd have one article that described their regular season play and then have to say "click on the 2011 article to see what happened in the playoffs."
C) Most importantly, and herein lies my main reason for putting the article up for AfD, this kind of thing is a BLP nightmare. If this became a trend we could literally have thousands of these articles. They would be under-watched and ripe for defamatory claims.
I would advocate deleting this, or possibly merging some material back into Lindsey Vonn if that's appropriate. If other editors feel that we should not have this article then I would suggest locating all similar articles and doing a bundled AfD, or simply finding them and redirecting them back to the relevant parent article. Sorry for the lengthy nom but I wanted to lay out a more detailed case since there are other articles likes this. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice, which is also nominated for deletion, this amount of detail belongs in the article about the athlete. Normally, I'd say merge, but the concept of devoting an entire page for a year in the life of anyone should be deterred. The minutiae of how she fared in each race held in 2010 doesn't merit its own article; the obvious answer to the "What's next, _____?" question is Lindsey Vonn in 2011, but it also sets the precedent for diaries about any person in 2011-- Charlie Sheen in 2011, Chad Ochocinco in 2011, John Wall in 2011, Sarah Palin in 2011, etc. Way too much to fit in the Lindsey Vonn article, perhaps, but that's what editing is all about. One can list everything, or one can have links like this [12]. Mandsford 14:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't the Vonnopedia, we don't need to see this level of detail, for this or any other person. It just isn't important or notable enough to classify/categorize by year. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just rediculous. LiteralKa (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not sure how vulnerable such pages would be in BLP terms (this one looks to have escaped serious issues), but I do think that having articles on sportspersons' individual seasons is too much in general. I appreciate the intention behind this article (not overloading the main article), but its existence does reveal a summary style problem. Some of the material probably should be included in the main article, but not a complete recap of every event she competed in. Merge what's deemed to be important, and dump the rest. And yes, the precedent set by keeping this would be troublesome. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
play of undetermined notabilty. WuhWuzDat 07:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a couple of good sources for the play. Surprised I'd not heard of Anthony Neilson, since I go to the Edinburgh Festival most years. Clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate article. There are one or two facts that can be salvaged from this.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or smerge (selective merge) as suggested. Duplicate articles are usually merged into the older, more standardized title of the two. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Almost xero information for merge except the images. scope_creep (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. One app in an ocean of them, and the only sources are "this exists" sources, and do not establish notability. Sven ManguardTalk 05:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reputile
But as this is a consumer product where people should know everything about it, shouldn't the trusted source of wikipedia be the guide.
NAVV is one of biggest apps on the Itunes store, and is number one in many countrys and so, it is a topic of intrest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.155.251 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "references" do not provide the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, and a little spammy. ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be done to ensure the page isn't deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehens (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I added a source. The local newspaper has an article this week on the organization. However the paper can't be viewed online without a subscription. It's in the hard copy though. Will this work?Kevin D Hensley (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable source found in news, books or web. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; without proper sourcing, and it seems that none of us can really find any, these bodies fail WP:ORG. The overarching organisation may be notable, but these elements of it are not independently so. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For anything to be mergeable, it has to be referenced. Ironholds (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but YMCA Youth Parliament, per Ironholds. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all a quick search of the Courier Mail Queenslands major newspaper returns 1007 articles the most recent article being about the South Australian Youth Parliament was dated 10 August 2010. Editors need to take more care about how they frame searches with gnews as Wikipedia article names are the result of compromises to wider audience which doesnt necessarily reflect what is used in the media where location, sponsors/supporters/proponents are ommitted due presumed knowledge and space. Gnangarra 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your search is faulty there are only 6 articles covering this. your search included any article with youth and parliament in it. not specifically youth parliament. and only 2 of these 6 articles actually contain decent detail. Editors need to take more care about how they frame searches within news.com.au and understand how to search phrases. I stand by my nomination. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did you find any articles on Tasmanian and NT parliaments to back your keep all !vote? LibStar (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasim intended>you should have read my comment i said "A quick search..." but WOW thats impressive you were able to review 1000 articles in 3 minutes.</scarcasim intended> What you did was look at the first result page of the search and decided that 2/6 you looked at were about the Youth Parliaments related to this AFD, were as I went through multiple pages of the search and concluded that on the face of a general search of one media outlet there appears to be sufficient sources because theres a significant distinction between the titles of our articles and the way in which the media refers to them. Gnangarra 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Libstar both re the search and that the quality of the articles - one on SAYP and one on NSW - doesn't look like enough to source individual articles about each YP. There might be enough - if a few more can also be found - to have an article on the YPs as a whole.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try another news service this time the ABC that returns hits for Tasmania, NT, as well as WA Victoria though theyre not included in this afd Gnangarra 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way none of these are included in a gnews search, so obviously your search method is subtancially worse then my quick search Gnangarra 10:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this one from Local Government Focus(Newspaper for Australian local governments) reports on the 2001 Tasmanian Youth Parliament. Lack of gnew hits is not a valid reason for deleting articles, there is nothing in WP:NOTABILITY that defines notability based on Google news. Gnangarra 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bduke. I think each of these organisations are only marginally notable but the concept is much more so; as Gnangarra has demonstrated, referencing should not be a problem. Orderinchaos 05:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 05:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All A happy little circle of interlinked pages with little content and even less sourcing. Fails notability. Sven ManguardTalk 05:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Much like model UNs, these are only significant to those who participate in them, hence the lack of coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge, if needed, can be discussed at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination is for an invalid reason. This is a television episode, not an organization, so it shouldn't be expected to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Why should this be deleted when all the other Desperate Housewives episodes have their own page? BurienBomber (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has ownership issues when it comes to Desperate Housewives articles and this is an abuse of the AfD process in order to get their way with what they forsee is either an incorrect episode title or an article they didn't get to create. Episode title is sourced here. Nate•(chatter) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desperate Housewives (season 7) until at the very least there is a plot summary, despite flawed nom rationale...clearly just a title and date in no way meets WP:GNG and it doesn't air for a month. CTJF83chat 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not much point in deleting this only to re-create it in a month. (and it has to be said: WP:ORG for a TV episode??) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It will be re-created and notable in 4 weeks. Duplication of effort at that scale is wasteful and inefficient. Leave well alone. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep--NOTE: I have tried to add referenced content to the article, but the user who filed this AfD has been deleting the references and content BurienBomber (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Declined speedy. Autobiography written by a local Conservative councillor in Northamptonshire, England about himself. Part of it is a copy and paste of the biography on this website, though I can't tell if it's a copyright violation or not. He appears to have done a lot in terms of his civic duty to his community, both in this country and in Bangladesh, but there's a huge lack of verifiable references for much of the information presented here, and what can be proven, isn't notable. roleplayer 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article has been speedily deleted twice already, once at Yousuf Miah and once at Yousuf miah, although this is the first deletion discussion regarding this page. -- roleplayer 02:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as someone who's had a hand in maintanance tagging the 2 previous attempts, and explaining to the user that they're really not supposed to be writing about themselves here. Hasteur (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely unverifiable puff piece by non-notable politician. If he continues to ignore warnings not to write vanity articles about himself then administrative action should be taken. Valenciano (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, offices held aren't significant enough for an article in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed the speedy from the latest incarnation (an A7 not a G11 like one of the previous speedy deletions) as although I agree no single position would be enough to avoid speedy taken together I thought they were enough to suggest he may have received some significant coverage in the press as an important member of the community and that is enough to avoid speedy. I also had concerns that a simple google news search (which did return a few articles) may miss some articles in publications aimed at that community and so thought it best to have it brought here to see if anyone could find sources. I was thinking of starting an AfD this morning but I see someone beat me to it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable individual that falls well short of the requirements in WP:POLITICIAN and does not come near in any other field. - Galloglass 11:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt both variants - non-notable local self-advertiser who keeps recreating this. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start salting, it's starting to snow. --Triwbe (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, cut and dried. Snowball close anyone? ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and salt: Per WP:N. Author is a repeat-copyviolator. --Ragib (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer. He never played in Brazil national level, and Brazil state level is not a fully-pro league (at least not all the club receive TV revenue and the conditions varies state by state) And Juventus is in Sao Paulo Serie A3; Rio Claro was in the top level of Sao Paulo in 2008 but he was loaned to the club in June, thus only possibly played at Copa Paulista, a cup competitions mixed with semi-pro and pro team (Paulista Serie A3 to A1) and big team likes Sao Paulo FC did not play, other team except Paraná were non-notable. Matthew_hktc 02:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. He clearly fails all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A gentleman on Twitter has recently admitted that he was paid to create this article. That notwithstanding, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP, and the sources seem to be PR pieces. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no actual claim to notability in the article, and the sources are press releases from the company or trivial mentions of corporate officers. --bonadeacontributionstalk 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, which is probably a good idea when confronted with paid editing. No reliable sources cited in the article, and none found on GNews/Books/Scholar. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement that does not meet notability guidelines. The conflict of interest issue is especially concerning.--resLaozispeak 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - should have been speedied already, no credible claim of notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be a particularly notable aviator. No outstanding accomplishments are noted here, only that he participated in some notable events but apparently did not win any of them, and he is one of the over 20,000 persons memorialized at the Air Forces Memorial. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The first reference doesn't even mention him by name, and the other two are not a whole lot better. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, not notable on WP:MILMOS/N or other Wikipedia notability criteria. - Aeonx (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was once the subject of a speedy delete. It was recreated by the same editor (its sole substantive contributor) with what appear to be bogus references. The first reference is from a newsletter from a minor organization with only one sentence mentioning that this center was established. The second states that an individual that is the chair of this center was one of 40+ that presented at a conference. The third reference has no relation to the article at all. The fourth and fifth references make no reference to the subject of the article. The sixth is the center's website. Overall, it fails to meet WP:N or the terms outlined in WP:NOBLECAUSE--NDSteve10 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion for this article was once declined, due to the sources that might be an indicator for notability. Still, I don't think they are sufficient for the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources neccessary to pass WP:CORP. This is a failed company, which did not do anything more than announcing its plans to offer some low-cost flights to China, which never materialized. Therefore, I cannot see any encyclopedic relevance. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Air Macau : Planned-only companies are inherently non-notable unless there is a specific reason and substantial third party coverage to make such a company especially notable - which I cannot find in this case. The info should be put in the Air Macau article, which was the parent company as per [17]Travelbird (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable compilation album. Fails NALBUM because of no major awards, major reviews etc. Only source in article is review from minor, non-notable website. Search couldn't find anything. Prod removed with "Removed deletion box as CD is authenticated by verifiable source". Created by someone who probably has a COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Christopher, I have read the WP:COI policy and understand that I have a Conflict of Interest in this article as I was a member of one of the bands that appeared on the CD. It is not my intention to breach Wikipedia policy. I will make no further contributions to Wikipedia until I have fully read and understand Wikipedia policies. I accept that this article does not have the notability required and I am happy for it to be deleted. - Cousinss (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Black Kite (t)(c) 11:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, this is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedi article. JIP | Talk 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filing this on behalf of an IP that messed up the templates but clearly intended to bring this to AfD. His rationale:
Notability problem: can wikipedia really accept any scientist with an h-index less than 15 or so (maybe even less for this particular case ? In his paper Hirsch proposed that in order to get full prof you should have an h-index at least equal to 20 and wikipedia shold at least do the same ?
I'd add as my own rationale that I believe this person fails the WP:GNG and lacks secondary biographical coverage, regardless of h-index. So count this as a second delete vote. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the original unregistered nominator: who is "Hirsch" and what is his paper? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to H-index. I personally think that notability for professors should not even weigh h-index as a factor, since many with a high h-index fail the GNG since there is no secondary biographical coverage out there. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites are 489, 54, 50, 36.... with h index = 17 which suffices to pass WP:Prof#C1. The views of Gigs, which he repeatedly tries to push on these pages have not been accepted as policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
WP:V is policy. No verifiable biographical information means the article will always fail to meet our core policies. It is the people who cite h-index rather than secondary source coverage who are pushing something that is not policy. Gigs (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, as Xxan has demonstrated. Failing the GNG is irrelevant, as wp:prof is an independent source of notability. Verifiability about basic things like employment can be had from autobiographical sources like the subject's website; his papers are self-verifying. RayTalk 08:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing song notability, no sources exist. Probably better to delete if redirect's contested. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on previous "delete" !votes on this AfD and hw I didn't find relevant stuff on Google News. NotARealWord (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uros no longer plays for Cork City FC, no longer on official club website squad list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsetne (talk • contribs)
Neutral—plenty of database and team sources, and the player himself has received significant coverage in articles and so forth: [18], [19]. The problem is that these sources are not in English, and I'm not sure of their reliability. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and both the clubs he has played for are not fully pro, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Fails WP:ATHLETE, but seems to have quite a bit of coverage (see links above and also [20]) so would probably satisfy the GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the clubs for which he has played are in fully professional leagues. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Coverage is general sports journalism and hometown websites with non-noteworthy (in the scheme of things) coverage about how well their local here is getting on abroad.--ClubOranjeT 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to transfermarkt.co.uk Hojan also spent time with Slovenian clubs NK Korotan 2005-06 and NK Dravograd 2007-09 and Iceland's IF Höttur 2006-07, all of which are non-professional lower level sides. Timbouctou 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Animals on Wikipedia perhaps have a higher barrier to climb than humans but in this case, Snip Nua is only notable for her unfortunate death, and the reaction it caused, and was not otherwise notable. So this article is somewhat comparable with WP:BLP1E, and appears to being used (as it was previously in Dara O'Briain) as a coatrack to advocate for better standards in greyhound racing which I do not think is the purpose of Wikipedia. Multiple reliable sources may be all very well, but if this poor dog had not appeared on television, nobody would have cared that much, and there would be no reason for an article. Close to the line it may be, but my opinion is that it crosses the line as having no notability beyond her death being reported: and that isn't enough to sustain an article here. Rodhullandemu 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that the article's main contributor seems to have a very clear POV on this issue (see Fior Gael syndicate, which had escaped my notice until tonight, in addition to the previously-mentioned Dara O'Briain) and to have been intending to make a point in the article's creation and phrasing.
However, I have done some work in de-POVing the phrasing, and as far as WP:GNG, I do think Snip Nua is safe. She certainly seems to have been covered substantially in the news, as a large part of a popular television program. The "famous for one thing" bit is true and perhaps makes her a bit iffy; on the other hand, she's not a Living Person (or Living Canine, for that matter), so applying a deliberately-strict guideline intended to head off liability concerns, to a dead animal might be pushing it. On the other other hand, I'm a bit afraid my seeing it as slightly on the "keep" side of the line might be influenced by WP:ILIKEIT worming its way into my brain.
The information could conceivably be merged into Three Men in a Boat (TV Series), but that strikes me as a worse coatrack threat than a stand-alone, well-sourced article. The dilemma, to me, is that we have this situation, well-covered by news sources, of the dog being famous and then being put down and protested over, which seems to me to be quite notable, but putting it in the article on the show, as that article stands, would be grossly undue weight considering the length of the info on the show itself. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen Fior Gael syndicate, but now I have, I am persuaded that it's part of a picture, and another [[WP:SOAPBOX|platform which we do not accept here. Accordingly, since it does not appear to be independently notable and merely repeats other material, I'll boldly redirect it. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There is no WP:BLP1E to discuss here, that much is obvious: it's not a biography of a living person in any way. There's also no WP:ONEEVENT, which is policy for people accused of notoriety. This article is not the life story of a dog! It is about an incident and its aftermath. A redirect to something more explicative, like "The Snip Nua Incident" (or "Affair", or "Controversy") might be good, but the article itself should stay: it's a developing story which already has enough solid citation to pass WP:GNG. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with SteveStrummer and further, I think their was enough cultural presence for the programmme itself to warrant an extension of article space, a central aspect of the programme, à propos Snip Nua. scope_creep (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutaculartalk 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to establish notability for bands. The article also fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, the writings of the article creator here suggest that Wikipedia is being used as a promotional plattform for this non-notable band. Amsaim (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have created this page and I have spent a lot of time making sure that the information is accurate and in-line with the guidelines set out by Wikipedia. This article is not for self promotion. This article clearly states historical and background information of public interest on a relatively new artist which has made a massive impact on the UK Afrobeat seen. With international radio play, live sessions for the BBC, high profile public performances, I can not understand why it's notability is being questioned. There are no infringements of copyright law, there is nothing political, violent or attacking. There are no uncited claims.
This article has not been conceived as a tool for self-promotion or advertisement. This article has been written to assist the international community in finding background and historical information on a band which is making a huge impact and fast gaining a committed fan base across the globe.
Delete. The guideline set out by Wikipedia that this article falls short of is notability. The general guidelines for notability are substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources; the article does not demonstrate this. There are some additional standards which can indicate the notability of a musician; again, the article does not assert any of these things. While UK Afrobeat may be a relatively small musical genre, there should be some secondary sources about the band if they have made a "massive impact" on it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This article DOES fall in with the guidelines as set out by Wikipedia.
1. The band have performed a 2 hour live session for live radio broadcast on the BBC. For an Afrobeat artist, this is 'significant coverage' (see Wikipedia:Notability)
2. The band have had regular international radio play of multiple tracks from the pre-release of their album. For an Afrobeat artist, this is 'significant coverage' (see Wikipedia:Notability)
Please see 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' on Wikipedia:Notability (music) and look at items 7, 9, 10, 11, 12. This artist satisfies all of these requirements.
There are limited on-line resources for this artist. This fact does not under any circumstances mean that the article in question (for sadly potential deletion), falls short of wikipedia's criteria for notability. Many industry experts consider The Ariya Astrobeat Arkestra to be one of the most exciting offerings of the UK Afrobeat scene for many years. The fact that they have just been broadcast (in live session) on the UK's number 1 funk and soul radio show, (BBC6 - Craig Charles Funk & Soul Show) says it all. It is important that artist's who are notable within niche genres of music, get the same encyclopedic recognition as those from large genres with proportionally less public interest within their genre. Wikimuso (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP editor 81.147.35.105 placed the "Keep" sign/ivote in this AfD for another editor. I have reverted her/his edit. Could an admin pls check if IP editor 81.147.35.105 is a sock-puppet of Wikimuso? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I hadn't realised that my computer had signed me out! I have edited both of my above posts Wikimuso (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please only make one recommendation (!vote) per discussion. I've struck through the duplicate keep. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you C.Fred. I didn't realise this was an additional vote. From looking at other AfD's, I concluded that you must have to start your post on an AfD with either 'keep' or 'delete'. My rookie mistake. Wikimuso (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy mistake to make Wikimuso, I have forgotten I was logged out before also. You must be careful in this 'rookie' phase as it appeared that you were involved in sockpuppetry. This is heavily frowned upon in the community however it is clear that you are acting with the best intentions, even if you are making a few mistakes! Be careful. Before writing more articles I would advise you to spend some time learning and reading about how to maintain integrity with your activity on Wikipedia. It is an incredible community to be part of but take your time and don't rush in. It is clear that this article means a lot to you so I assume there is some bias, try to remain more detached in the future. I have chosen to vote to keep this article on-line because as it happens I know quite a lot about the genre of Afrobeat. I listened to the BBC broadcast and I have since been talking to many in the afrobeat community about The Ariya Astobeat Arkestra. They have certainly made a huge impact. On a personal note; I really like the music. In terms of it's encyclopedic relevance, I believe it to be wholly relevant and worthy of a presence on Wikipedia and thus my vote is to keep this article. Try to obtain more information to give this article validity for those less in the know who like to see 'Rookies' crash and burn! Good luck! 82.132.139.112 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Impossible to claim to be important in a particular scene without any reliable sources to back that up (in music you can't be important without anyone noticing), especially when that's the one and only claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've not had time to look at this article in detail and its not in my area of expertise/interest. However, it is verifiable that this artist has been featured extensivly on this episode of the craig charles funk and soul show. This is a niche, but influential national show and certainly meets the requirements of Item 12 of WP:Band (COI disclaimer, its one of my favourite shows :p). Given this verifiable reliable coverage it seems to me that the article should be kept (albeit with the usual warnings about WP:V, WP:COI and WP:OR that are always appropriate for "fan" articles that have been predominantly developed by one contributor)Ajbpearce (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Minor new band with few sales. The Craig Charles show (Hail to Dave Lister) is a show for new and up coming bands. There is zero notability here. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please observe the most recent update to the Ariya Astrobeat Arkestra article noting the broadcast of the band on BBC Radio 2, Jamie Cullum Show on November 16th 2010. I believe his remarks will dismiss concerns as to the bands notability. In reference to the comment above regarding the artists record sales, to make a comment such as this you would of course need to know the figures, which you clearly do not. The bands debut album was only released yesterday (15th November). Wikimuso (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:MUSICBIO mentions any band is notable if the band "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." I see evidence of the same on BBC. I've given here four playlists for BBC. There would be more...[21][22][23][24]. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afrobeat is about to reach a much bigger audience due to the Fela stage show and this band are beginning to be noted as the only readily available UK live exponent of this genre. I am no puppet and have no idea how to do this properly so apologies if this looks peculiar but it would be foolish to let this slip. Album reviews help here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.40.49 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bands debut album has only been out for 4 days so reviews are only just starting to trickle in. Please see the link added to the said article today from Okay Player. Okay Player is a highly regarded source for independent and credible reviews. With Jamie Cullum's radio comments two days ago on BBC Radio2, along with this review today, there is plenty of proof that people are 'talking about' The Ariya Astrobeat Arkestra. Wikimuso (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing coming close to WP:MUSICBIO for this DJ without a label. Not to be confused with DJ Jonty Scruff, another non-notable artist. JaGatalk 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83chat 00:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is correct--zero RS references, no one has tried to improve this in two weeks. Nuke it. Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A speedy candidate (CSD:A7) in my view as there does not seems to be any claim of significance or importance. Could not see any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG in a Google search. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable info, not notable subject, peacock terms, article left as orphan for more than 6 months Reqluce (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article quality is not great, but subject is notable based on meeting WP:GNG from sources found on news search.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83chat 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requirements of the general notability guideline is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources and there seems to be sufficent available through Google to rework the article into an acceptable form. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was clear consensus to delete; closing early per WP:SNOW. Airplaneman ✈ 04:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, patently non-notable, unencyclopedic, violates WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Why oh why don't we have a speedy category for this? --Kinut/c 00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be un-notable, if it happened. Endofskull (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a UT-Austin-based private joke, although YouTube does reveal a Spanish-language song called "Pescuezo de pollo". This may not qualify for speedy(although I see that The Chicken Neck Party was A1'd yesterday), but I feel a WP:SNOW storm in the air.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable party scheduled for November 24. Wikipedia isn't the Community Calendar. Mandsford 02:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is the wrong forum for this article. Let it WP:SNOW. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a very much non-notable event. JIP | Talk 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. No credible assertion of importance either; barely misses WP:CSD#A7 because it would have to be considered an organization, I guess. --Closeapple (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - Only very marginal mention I can find is here, but I have a lingering hesitancy to delete for some reason. ceranthor 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I usually avoid AfD debates about new bands, because about 99% are non-notable and should be deleted ASAP. It's all so predictable. In this case, though, we have an article about a band active 41 years ago. This is genuine musical history. There are 13 hits in Google Books, of varying quality. We know one of the musicians went on to undisputed notability. I know notability is not pre-inherited. However, I have the feeling that this article should stay, if we can figure out how to make it fly within our guidelines. It would be sad to lose the effort that went into this. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned by Cullen328. Article already has a few independent sources (such as the BBC page), and the album is reviewed at AllMusic[25]. Any COI problems can be fixed by editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just about notable, I think, otherwise merge to Tony Iommi, whose article doesn't mention them. This doesn't warrant outright deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked in the nomination shows that this band has entries in several print encyclopedias from well-established publishers, so it is clearly an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
