Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 15

< 14 August	16 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. No clear consensus for deletion. Many strong arguments for keeping. How this discussion was kept open for six weeks baffles me, especially since I see no relist tags on the page history. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Only Wish (This Year)[edit]

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

This page should be deleted, because although it passes WP:NSONGS by charting in Denmark, it does not warranty its own article. The article at its best state has four sections (only two of which are of actual text). It is currently of GA status, but honestly does not deserve it. I mean no harm to the nominator or the reviewer, who I believe are both wonderful editors. However, this article was a mistake and there is surely no point to have an article like this. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies the GNG. The nominator doesn't seem to have provided a compelling reason for deletion, and I fail what is to be gained from deleting a well-referenced, reasonably solid article such as this. Surely a GAR is the correct forum for concerns about its GA status? -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not only complaining about the GA status. This article might be well-referenced, but that is it. This is the strongest state that the article could get to and there just seems no point in having an article whose full potential is to be a stub. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. This article is nearly 400 words long (not lengthy, but certainly not a stub), and satisfies both the general and song specific notability guidelines. What policy are you arguing it should be deleted under? -- Lear's Fool 06:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS might say charting is important, but it also states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but it doesn't say they should be deleted. A merger discussion would be fine by me, but the fact that an article is just a stub (which I don't even think is the case here) is not grounds for deletion under our deletion policy. -- Lear's Fool 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should merged to Platinum Christmas if anything. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you nominate it for deletion? -- Lear's Fool 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – So what, the song has charted, thus passing WP:NSONGS. What else does the article have, really? Credits for the song and a little bit of reception. It blows my mind that this article is a GA, when it shouldn't even have been created in the first place. It's nothing more than a well-written stub. -- status ϟ ^talk 05:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — -- Lear's Fool 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — -- Lear's Fool 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Aside from the liner notes and sheet music, each source's mention of the song is trivial – what's quoted in the article is everything that was relevant. A Factiva search reveals about a dozen more newspaper items in which the song is discussed in about six words as part of a much larger review of new holiday music releases. So there is coverage of the topic, but not significant coverage, thus I don't believe GNG has been satisfied. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, this is a GA. In my opinion, articles having already passed GAN should not be deleted. Next, the article is written in a comprehensive way. Thirdly, having 162,000 digital paid downloads in the United States, is enough for notablility. Last but not the least, it has charted. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be notable, but it will never grow beyond a stub article. This is not a GA class article Jivesh. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend, i wish to assure you that i understand your point but why did not the reviewer consider this? Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I have no idea. I can't speak for Adabow, who's now retired. :( -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my ties with both the nominator and defender, I will not be posting an opinion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision is respected. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and merge chart info to parent album

First, the article's "notability" was only based on its charting on the Billboard Holiday/Seasonal Digital Songs, which was due to strong downloads. It did not even chart on the main listings. Its charting in Denmark could have been added in the mother page.
Second, upon review, the line Spears recorded the song in 2000, in the midst of her Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour. is not directly supported by its source.
Third, there is an impasse. Without its having gained much notability, there's not much information about the song, not enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article. In a nut shell, this is just a beautifully written stub.
Fourth, (with due respect to the reviewer who retired already) its GA status has no merits because first and foremost, this should have not been created as a single page. --Efe (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the song charted. Also a GA for deletion = Big WTF. There seems to be a worrisome trend that people come to think that AFD is the new GAR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First. There's no question that the song charted. But that's it. As cited by iPod, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second. That being a GA is a moot. First and foremost, the article was passed against the criteria (at least some). --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third. It might be disruptive, but I can, anyone can, delist the article from being a GA anytime. Individual assessment would do. --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal Clear x3 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deletion. How can this be a good article? This is one step away from stub. The good articles should be "informative" for the readers. For me, this isn't informative at all and I don't believe that it's going to be for someone else. I also think that 10 sources aren't enough for a separate article. 46.217.63.107 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, the song does not fail WP:NSONGS. Plus, it has charted two years on Denmark and apperead on Billboard Holiday/Seasonal Digital Song. And the article is already a GA. - Sauloviegas (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crystal Clear x3. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see eye to eye with the nominator on this issue at all. It's notable, it is a well kept article (GA Status). What is the problem? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on second thought, this article contains no information that couldn't be comfortable covered in the album article. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Platinum Christmas, the song's parent album. There appears to be no significant coverage for this song in independent reliable sources, therefore it fails WP:GNG. However, the subject is not an unreasonable search term, and WP:NSONGS notes that songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I !vote to redirect to the album article over the main Britney Spears article because of the song's holiday focus/content, and that it was originally released as part of the album. Given an either/or choice between keeping or deleting, I would !vote to keep per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." No exact threshold is given, though the guideline goes on to say that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged." Merging would not be appropriate per WP:UNDUE, and besides, I would suggest that the article in its current state is already "reasonably detailed" enough to be sufficiently beyond a stub. Gongshow ^Talk 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) passes GNG, 2) Passes NSONG, 3) is a GA at the moment. While I think Spears' music is as banal as it gets, the song meets all our inclusion criteria and doesn't trigger any of our WP:NOTs. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song charted, was reviewed, is a GA. --PlatinumFire 13:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:NSONGS. However, I think that it's too small to be a good article. My love is love (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is notable, however its GA status should be removed. JDDJS (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. WP:NSONGS does not supersede the GNG, and indeed starts with "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines...". I think this article passes the GNG, but only just. The GA status is irrelevant; notability is not one of the GA criteria and, anyway, reviewers at GAN are Only Human just like the people at AfD - a decision by a reviewer should not grant a lifetime exemption from deletion processes. bobrayner (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song isn't even a single and dosn't seem to have gained any real notability as it is. Its charting in one country due to downloads (and not very highly) is not reason enough to warrant an entire article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It seems that some phrases were deleted the article. When translated it with other users of Wikipedia in Spanish were there, not now. This is the version to be translated for it to become "artículo bueno" (good article) in wiki.es. I wonder why some phrases were deleted and a reference. The song is referenced with reliable sources and not see the point to erase. I can not write well in English.--Flores,Alberto (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delist its GA status, we can talk. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Hahn (La Dauphine)[edit]

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

Self-published vanity article using self-published/spurious sources. Article includes false information on the artist's ancestry as well. While she is perhaps a good singer she is not notable. Seven Letters 18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not discussed in independent sources. --Chonak (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources aside from the piece in the Bucks County Courier Times which is a local coverage human interest story. The density of name-dropping in this article is astounding. Hugely promotional with misleading statements like "GRAMMY recognized" which apparently means she attended attended Grammy camp, a music camp for teens. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To rid this article of WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:WEASEL wording, would pretty much leave us with only a list of WP:ELNO. It severely lacks the presence WP:RS, and is hardly worth the effort of a re-write. -- WikHead (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Public Domain Version[edit]

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

This is a 2nd nomination. The 1st, in 2005, was successful, but the article was re-created and rewritten in 2007. The topic is still a non-notable amateur translation project. Chonak (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable translation: not discussed in reliable sources, not even used by a significant number of reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Novakis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN, and appears to violate WP:BLP. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Supplementary Note: He is neither a notable dentist or musician. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination seems to have arisen due to ethno-political reasons. The nominator attempted to change the ethnicity of Kostas Novakis here, due to the following reason "Slavic-speaking is not Macedonian by default, claiming that a Macedonian ethnicity exists which is Slavic is preposterous". Apparently the idea of a Macedonian ethnicity with Slavic roots is "preposterous". (To quote the first line of Macedonians (ethnic group): "The Macedonians...are a South Slavic people".)

I believe that the nominator has nominated the article for deletion out of bad faith, namely, as a direct response to not being able to push this fringe view.

This perplexing edit summary was followed by the statements, "The history of Macedonia has nothing to do with the Slavs...Claiming that the Slavs have a new ethnicity which can be called "Macedonian" as a result is preposterous. It is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo." [1]. This was followed by "The word "ethnicity" does not apply. It is not relevant. It is an abuse of the word. You are inventing an ethnicity" [2].

If we are to accept what appears to be the underlying reason for this nomination I don't see why Macedonians (ethnic group) shouldn't be nominated also. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination made in bad faith, per above statements. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying reason for the nomination is that it "Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN, and appears to violate WP:BLP". Nothing more and nothing less. All three are justified and valid reasons. Can you provide any references that will enable the article to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN or WP:BLP or that will justify a keep recommendation? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in a newpaper article, his cd is mentioned at various music sites. Andreas ^(T) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a mention in one newspaper article which is not enough for WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN or WP:BLP. Unfortunately, mentions at various music sites do not qualify as WP:RS. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The notability is marginal, but the coverage of him in Greek mainstream media is uncommon enough in its cultural/political context that we can legitimately place more weight on the single Eleftherotypia article than we would otherwise do if it was just a routine mention of an amateur musician somewhere, so for me this only just tips the balance in favour of keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles in several Wikipedias about his activity. Including on the Greek project. Jingby (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iván López (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Google searches provide only basic fighter profile (that every fighter has) and cursory information about his one fight with a notable organization (a loss). TreyGeek (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:MMANOT and I see nothing else showing notability. Jakejr (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per consensus to keep based on WP:NHS. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Village Christian Schools[edit]

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

Unremarkable private school. Article reads like somebody copy/pasted the prospectus. Biker Biker (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G12 They did. I've tagged it with a copyright vio speedy deletion tag. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. I stubbed the article to remove the copyvio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Roadrunner Keep. Same reason here as Eastmain said. Also, "Unremarkable private school" sounds like a opinion reason, not a fact. LikeLakers2 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep With recent changes, I've struck my above support for a speedy delete. High schools are generally held to be notable per WP:NHS. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools have been judged to be inherently notable. Copyvio should still be revdeleted (I think that's how it works? that's how it was on another article I helped fix) but it's no longer in the article, so that CSD no longer applies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the way forward with high school articles is to fix and expand not delete. Sources are available to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETC (Water)[edit]

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

The product is not notable, as far as I can tell. What counts as references is neither impartial nor significant. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With millions of worldwide Wikipedia users. Making use of factual information in over 10 languages. It is arguable. That the irrelevance of the ETC (Water) article can be based on one individuals personal opinion. Notably, the company produce a bottled drinking water. Considerably low in calcium. Particularly significant for a drinking water sourced in England, much of which has an average calcium content of around 30mg. It is not suggested that Drmies may understand, sympathise or be at all interested in the relevance of the article, or the product. Although possibly a fraction of the millions of people who use Wikipedia to learn, may. And, a fraction of those users of the Encyclopaedia. Perhaps, may even suffer from a condition called Hyperparathyroidism. Hyperparathyroidism occurs when one or more of the four parathyroid glands grows into a tumour and behaves inappropriately by constantly making excess parathyroid hormone regardless of the level of calcium. In other words, one of the parathyroid glands has lost its control mechanism and continues to make large amounts of parathyroid hormone without paying attention to how high the blood calcium is. Thus, even when the calcium level is high. When the parathyroids should not be making any hormone at all, one of the glands keeps making hormone. This can also probably be read about on Wikipedia, unless it hasn’t been posted, because a handful of people and their ignorance. Find the subject ‘not notable’. And considering we must consume water in order to survive. It might be considered notable to know which manufacturers produce a product with content (or calcium levels) suited to suffers of the condition. Essentially. A food product. That has a low calcium content. That can be ingested to suit medical or dietary illness or conditions, is a notable product. As for extra sources, the post is open to all. And the editor encourages useful input and editing. Although as with much of history, science, learning and evolution. Time plays a notable part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm afraid you've missed the point on notability guidelines. Anyone can claim their product is important, but as far as inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned, notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers. (Well, I suppose Ben Goldacre might be interested in writing about this product, but I suspect you wouldn't like what he has to say.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Companies and organisations are prohibited from posting promotional and advertising content on Wikipedia. I’m afraid it is you, Chris Neville-Smith. Who may be confused as to the origins, and nature of the article itself. As a sufferer of Hyperparathyroidism, and regular user of Wikipedia. This places entitlement upon me, to highlight a product. In some aspects, detrimental to the dietary requirements of my condition. You evidently, do not suffer from illness or dietary complications. Quote from your last edit ‘notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers'. As above, the product is not my own to claim. And with regards to reliable sources, 'usually newspapers'. Time has been taken to obtain some verifiable articles about the product. Notably again, point 1 in notes of the article. Displays content, in online news publication; Caterer Search. The definition of what Caterer search is; according to Google is exactly as follows, ‘news’. It would not be rational to argue that news should necessarily be laid on print paper; considering the effects of global warming and increased mass landfill from consumer waste.Together with the need for editors to link from their posts to the online versions of any content. Or that you Chris Neville-Smith, read every online, printed or other news publication worldwide. Particularly about topics, that in this case, as you have demonstrated - do not relate to you personally. To enable you to categorically define the constitution of what 'news' is. It is also worth noting, that this is not the only source. There are others not listed in the article due to needing to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. Mr Goldacre appears a wonderfully talented individual. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a social media tool. Personal opinion cannot bear relevance to fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines on what is regarded as notable and how that is determined. No evidence is provided that this water has been discussed in reliable sources to the extent that it can be deemed notable. Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dmries above and my previous tagging. Global940, I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no evidence to support your personal opinion. That the article is not, notable, or in fact disreputable. Other than the editor Dmries, who initially created this thread. Which tallies your opposition numbers to a grand total of three. The two other participants who have so far taken part in the debate; LadyofShallot and Gene93k. Have shown no reason to recommend removal of the Article. Thus demonstrating ‘peoples’ want to perhaps be made aware of this product. Or simply learn. Based on this information. We can only summarise at differing opinions, based on results which see a 3 in favour, 3 against – for the article to continue serving its purpose. Factual information. Quote Chris Neville-Smith ‘Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you.’ One cannot pretend to know every guideline related to Wikipedia, as a general user. Although one can trust; that if any editing guidelines had been breached. Wikipedia would have already looked to have deleted the article themselves. If you Chris Neville-Smith created the guidelines to Wikipedia, and you are attempting to enforce these by way of debate. You are owed an apology. However your postings express your position as a similar editor / user. We cannot ignore your tone of ignorance Chris Neville Smith. As you continue to assume that your evaluation of what stands as a reliable news source. Surpasses those of the individuals who bring together corporate news establishments. That enable for articles and sources to be created. Generally the social assumption, is that if a ‘publication’ is entitled ‘News’. That constitutes news. And therefore a reliable source. With regards to the post by RobertMfromLI. Quote ‘I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry.’ It is very, highly; understandable that your many hours of surfing and editing. Place you in an unformidable position as advisor and editor. However you have misunderstood the issue in the article as has Chris Neville Smith. The article is not about personal interest, or individual affection to the subject. The article clarifies a natural drinking water product, from England, containing less than 14mg of calcium. Exceptionally low. And rare for this type of product, in this location. So to demonstrate the need for such critical information. ‘If you were to visit a doctor. And the doctor said. You have a medical condition. You must not all costs. Consume drinking water, with a calcium content of over 14mg. Otherwise you will die.’ One would have to have been made aware beforehand where possible. About remedies or products that could prevent their death. It’s for this very reason, that that the content of minerals must be displayed on bottles and products. Internationally, without question. Arguing the notability of such a topic is the entitlement of users of Wikipedia. However what you’re saying is that its better to make use of a product. Without fully knowing the facts. Which many users may disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global940, first, my apologies, but it was me who initially proposed this article for deletion, not Dmries. Second, it was nothing personal either way. And finally, it is up to you (or whichever editor adds content) to prove notability, which you have not. You can't just claim "hey, this is something that rarely happens, so it's notable" - you need to back that up with links to third party reliable sources, which you have not. I'd be glad to explain that all to you in more detail, on your talk page (or mine even) if you would like. Also, please remember to sign your posts by simply typing ~~~~ at the end of each post you make. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. One of the "references" is a Wikipedia article (which, incidentally, does not even mention ETC) and the others are advertisements. I really do suggest, Global940, that you look at the general notability guideline so that you have some idea what Wikipedia's notability standard is. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. I'd also like to point out that User:Global940 is the creator of the article. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. - Whpq (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cats & Dogs (Evidence album). — Joseph Fox 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Continued... (Evidence song)[edit]

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

An article about a song that has been created on 15. August 2011 to announce the release of a single for 16. August 2011. Unsourced WP:NMUSIC. Wikipedia is not an announcement platform for the record industry WP:NOTADVERTISING. Ben Ben (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fail, PLEASE!!! The fact that today is only 15 August 2011, and it says "This song was released as a digital download on August 16, 2010" (in a way as if to say this was already released) makes me think that this person doesn't exactly have common sense. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, thought it said 2011, when it said 2010. ~~I change to keep vote though. The song was indeed, released on 16 August 2010. So this AfD is basically wrong. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I change to Neutral, after some rethinking. Apparently if the song was released in 2010, but this article was a first-time creation on the 15th, today. I can't choose, really. Perhaps all it needs some expanding and more verification. LikeLakers2 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strange, ...the first single from his upcoming album Cats & Dogs... ... to be released September 27, 2011.? The article about the album is from August 2010 [3]. Oh, the release of the album has been postponed by one year! The mess with the dates is the result of a failed Product announcement. The album should be deleted too.--Ben Ben (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While this AfD apparently was started in error, song is not notable and article should be redirected to the artists article. Safiel (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Dillon (English footballer)[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP with no rationale given. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, and therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rich Texas[edit]

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

Reality TV show with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Program on national cable network. It's not doing much at all and probably won't get a second season, but it's aired episodes. Nate • (chatter) 05:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crappy show that has aired and received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as The Washington Post Dallas Observer Culturemap Los Angeles Times Star Telegram E! Entertainment Star Telegram NBC Digital Spy and Deadline hollywood to share but a few found in a very quick search. Sources neeed be added yes, but that is an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedily closed as keep - this is a bad-faith, disruptive nomination. I closed an identical AfD by the same nom earlier today. If you disagree with the closure, please take the matter to WP:DRV. Don't conduct your battles across the pages of AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence[edit]

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

For one I will note to anyone who tries to close as speedily keep that the previous conversations took place 3 years ago. These were not recent. I believe that the passage of time is a factor in reviewing this. Next, I did give reasons why this category should be deleted. The discussion of the intelligence of any ethnicity or race is anti-semitic and denotes a type of discrimination. Yes, there are articles on wikipedia that let us know about "Blackface," racial slurs, etc. But the discussion of an ethnicity's intelligence is highly debatable, and even with sources, these sources are biased. Speedy Keep because the discussions happened three years ago? Yeah no, that's not a good reason. There are new people on Wikipedia with new opinions. -Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Dashmesh Darbar Sahib (New Jersey)[edit]

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

not notable, mostly just information about the organization which belongs on their website not wikipedia, the information about sikhism can be found under the Sikhism article CapMan07008 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) CapMan07008 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ethical to write about something which is not a Famous thing. I respect all the religions but I am sorry to say this is not supposed to be an article on wikipedia. I have therefore approached from Speedy deletion of the page. For any queries, Contact on my talk page.
Regards,
Shroffameen (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability criteria for inclusion. All sources I found in a quick search were either related to the subject or were unreliable. Strip away the "About Sikhism" section (which ought to be covered in a more encyclopedic manner in the Sikhism article) and what we're left with is an article that qualifies as A7 and maybe G11. I'm not sure if a 5-year-old article can be speedily deleted; I'll tag it and let an admin decide. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily as A7. I've removed the "About Sikhism" section because it is not appropriate for this article and does nothing toward establishing the encyclopedic value of this article. What's left is possibly also a G11, but I see no coverage showing why this particular gurdwara meets WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain First of all, our standard is notability, which is much much less than fame. "Famous" - an abridged encyclopedia. There were two topics in the article. One is the 19th Sikh games, which I removed (and I will see if I can make an article about it as a separate article about the annual event if I can find references for it.) The other topic is a Sikh temple, " the biggest gurudwara in Mew Jersey," to quote the article. I have not checked for citations yet. But it is not a speedy. I consider the article factual not advertising, so its not a G11, and it makes a clear claim to importance, so it is not A7. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily,Although it is well written (the possible cause on why it has been unnoticed for 5 years) but it still has absolutely no independent references to anything mentioned in the article. Despite the fact I'm relatively new and don't understand everything as well as you all do, but I still think this fits nicely under A7 CapMan07008 ( talk ) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I should not be allowed to use Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichiji Tasaki[edit]

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

Only primary sources. Search for secondary sources found nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first page of a standard google search brings these to attention:

this tribute to Tasaki from Congressman Chris van Hollen,
A five-page long article on Tasaki from the Washington Post following Tasaki's death, and
This biography from the National Institute of Health on Tasaki's legacy.

His neurological work is also discussed in this NPR story. I have added these sources to the article and I ask that the nomination be closed if the nominator is satisfied. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notability is clear and secondary sources are easily identified. I found the same Washington Post obit and I'll add this from NPR.Novangelis (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa: I missed that the NPR story was also listed.Novangelis (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lidia Bastianich. — Joseph Fox 13:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Bastianich Manuali[edit]

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

Spotted this on WP:RFF - I personally see nothing notable, and nearly all the citations appear promotional - books, commercial, etc. Appears to me as shadowing Lidia Bastianich (mother), but without the same notability to warrant as an article, especially written and cited the way it is. Just my 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could make it a better biography. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the most modest of efforts, I immediately found articles about this person in New York Daily news New York Post FoxNews Saveur and Cityfile While i-Italy reports that she and her family have been honored by National Organization of Italian American Women for their contibutions to their field. Enough reliable sources find she and her work worthy of note that I am surprised anyone would write "I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could make it a better biography". She writes cookbooks. So? That is part of her notability, just as it is for Peg Bracken and Julia Childs. Her books are widely and well reviewed by such as Goodreads Her notability is found through meeting WP:AUTHOR. And coverage of she and her works also meets WP:GNG. So we DO have enough that could make this a better bio. The nomintor points toward shaky citations in the article. Seems an addressable issue to me. It'd just take a little effort and some regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two and last two of your "sources" are about LIDIA - her mother - the fourth link is written by Tanya herself, so it presents a WP:SELFCITE COI issue. So only 1 of those 6 links is about Tanya and it's a FoxNews video - there's no prose. Not a very good "modest effort" if you don't check that you even have the right person. Lidia already has an article, I mentioned it in the nomination, there was nothing "shaky" about my concerns.. Tanya's notability is still not confirmed, because she cannot claim her mother's merits. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has co-written multiple and well-reviewed cookbooks,[4] WP:AUTHOR applies to those shared authorship works just as it does to something written by only one person. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They still have to be cited, and without introducing COI - cookbooks are not particularly high-up in terms of significant notability unless the cook is widely recognised. I don't see you referencing any o these reviews either, to verify her reception, independent of her mother. Given that all these titles are "Lidia's" in the titles, for all we know Tanya may simply have written the Forward - again, I fail to see her personal notability, only a mother/daughter relationship, from which mother Lidia is named in the title, and Tanya is not. This article is nothing more than a shadow, without substance.

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - so far this appears not to be satisfied. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lidia Bastianich#Personal life where Tanya is alread mentioned in relationship to her work with her mother. If someone wants to read up on Tanya, that's where she should be found. I agree that there are not enough sources to support a decent BLP, and have stricken my comments toward that possibility. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now that the article does not deal solely with the murders--and I changed the lede sentence to clarify that they are not necessarily even the primary notability, I think its clear that the last 3 comments are the true solution. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10050 Cielo Drive, Benedict Canyon, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced stub article with only refs pointing to three mentions about Trent Reznor's ownership of the property (one of which is a dead link).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tate-LaBianca murders has been merged into Charles Manson. While the murders and people involved are clearly notable, the address/home location where the murders took place is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge seems about right to me. the original house isn't even there any more and the new address is different. only notability comes from murders, and if article on murders has been merged, so should this be. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect; any well referenced material can be merged into the Charles Manson article page; everything else can be deleted, and a redirect left in its place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How will readers learn about well referenced material that can't be merged into the Manson article if its deleted?--Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This article is not well-referenced. There are three references, all which pertain to Trent Reznor's ownership of the property. Outside of the murders committed at the location, which are already covered in other sourced articles, this property is not notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merging the Tate-LaBianca murders article into the Charles Manson one made sense as the former was 100% related to the latter. However this topic is not. It had a notable history dating back decades before the Tate-LaBianca murders as it was designed by a notable architect and was the residence of multiple iconic Hollywood figures (that last fact would easily qualify it for a blue plaque in London) and would've likely have been a notable topic if Manson had nothing to do with it. The Manson connection adds to its notability. The facts of the Hollywood history of the house pre-murders would be totally off-topic and out of place in the Charles Manson article.--Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the notability of a murder does not automatically convey notability to the place where that murder was committed, this particular residence has a history that is tied to a notable architect and other notable residents. I agree that this historical information would be out of place in Charles Manson. Location (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep users are right the other information would not be appropriate to include in the charles manson article, to it should be separate.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is still the potential to add about this film in Tremors (film) but consensus here is that waiting is the best option. — Joseph Fox 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors 5: The Thunder from Down Under[edit]

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

As per WP:TOOSOON, no sources provided either. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Per WP:FUTURE, and only if sourcable, something "might" be included in the Tremors (film) article in a section on the "planned" sequel. But if not sourcable, then nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF. I would have suggested redirecting to Tremors (film series), but was suprised to find there isn't an article for that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film series covered in and never spun out of Tremors (film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any confirmation of this film.Curb Chain (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 23:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Mountain[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:BK. Based on a GNews archives search it seems unlikely that reliable sources will be found to address notability in the near future as though there is evidence of reviews, I find no appropriate awards or an explanation of the significant contribution expected. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a central book in a major (arguably the major) series from a highly notable children's author. The only reason it's hard to find reviews from noteworthy sources is that there are so many reviews out there that it's a Herculean task to sift through them all. Yunshui (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't make him notable, does it?Curb Chain (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple google search brings up truck loads of reviews. Nom seems aware of this so I don't know why it was brought to afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I mentioned evidence of reviews in the nomination, these need to be "non-trivial" to meet the BK criteria. Perhaps you could select one significant review of this book in a quality reliable source as a counter example for this AfD? My search only found tangential mentions in reviews of the author's works in general, or for reviews of the series that might justify the notability of the series but not this particular work. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like user Yunishi said - I don't fancy sorting through thousands of crumby reviews to find a good one, and there are literaly thousands of reviews, sorry. Szzuk (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are many reviews for this series. Couldn't we say the same thing about some series that don't have articles?Curb Chain (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The single source provided is not sufficient. No actual sources provided in the discussion above, and I was unable to see any quick evidence of meeting the general notability guideline. Bring some specific sources to the discussion, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author is not notable, the series is not notable, and if the series was notable, it would not make the author notable as notability is not inherited.Curb Chain (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale here may seem just to be stating that this book is not notable without giving a reason. Well, I can attest that many books part of series are not notable inthemselves, but the series may be. But it looks to mean like there is nothing this series, or book, for this matter, has that makes them unique. As we don't have an article of every book of every series, and we don't have an article of every series of literature, I see no assertion of notability, and see no reason why this book should get it's own article (the series is outside the scope of this discussion).Curb Chain (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very tired of this convo: Editorial reviews here Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure you are. You may find reading through the criteria and guidance at WP:BK will reduce your frustration and help you understand why this article still presents a notability problem. Considering you are linking to reviews on Barnes & Noble, you may find the section "Online bookstores" particularly helpful, it mentions that site specifically. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - Searched World Cat and is present in 1573 libraries, also is recorder in the Library of Congress thereby meeting the WP:NBOOK threshold standards. I believe it exceeds per what user Szzuk has said. MadCow257 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the second paragraph of "Threshold standards" in NBOOK, you appear to be making the assumption that meeting the exclusionary criteria implies the book is notable and the guidelines make it explicitly clear that this is not the case. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had read that, but hadn't specifically looked into the reviews when I posted. Upon some research, all of the relevant ones that I can find are listed at http://www.darrenshan.com/reviews/list/vampire-mountain/. I am not familiar much with literature, but they all appear to be of Barnes & Noble style and are not of the desired level of quality. I will not vote, but comment that the other works in this series should also be considered for deletion if this one is deleted: The Saga of Darren Shan MadCow257 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Meets BOOk. Reviews are what show notability of books. Being present in over 1000 libraries is also an implict criterion for it, because libraries buy books on the basis of reviews. However, the possibility of merging books in a series is always present, and is often a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

Actually, many books are donated to libraries, and requested by citizens.Curb Chain (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, many are. So a few scattered library holding do not mean much. In fact, a few scattered holdings in the area where the author lives generally do indicate a donation by the author. And of course the public asks for books--books they know about. Libraries try very hard to have the books in place before that. I would not have even made this argument for say 1000 holdings for this type of book, but such a large number is significant. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Law[edit]

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

Rather nice little adage, actually, but nevertheless something that someone made up. The sources listed are all self-published sources ie. chatrooms etc. and I've been unable to find any direct, detailed coverage of this concept in reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge See the comment on Talk:Clark's Law by Zennyrpg MadCow257 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not worth merging) - there are conspicuously few references to 'Clark's law' in reliable sources (that are about this adage). I wouldn't object to a brief mention of it in Hanlon's razor (which it resembles) or perhaps Clarke's three laws, but we should find an actual reliable source before doing so. Robofish (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and concur there is nothing worth merging as there isn't really coverage about this "law" -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is autobiographical.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Maynard[edit]

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

Biographical page contributed by subject, and is being actively edited by subject. Subject fails notability test. 4er6ty8ui (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely notable. From the news hits [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - frankie (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the diligence you exercised with providing those citations. (→Netscott) 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's Internet Famous, yes, but still notable - it might help to note which 'notability test' you're using. I'd be more concerned about his involvement in the page if it didn't appear neutral. Several Times (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test he fails is WP:NTEMP. If we look at all the news references, there are three events. He appeared on Kimmell's TV show, he was barred from seeing a movie in a brightly-illuminated suit, and he attended a convention. I put it to you that this is pretty close to WP:ONEEVENT, unless we are going to feature a biography of everyone who attends a fan convention or is kicked out of a movie for making an annoying noise. 4er6ty8ui (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that Maynard is only really notable for his Tron Guy costume, but he continues to be notable for it. It's not as if he wore it once, made a YouTube video, and then waited until it became popular. He continues to wear the costume at public events and continues to receive media coverage for it. Several Times (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing about this is that every piece of information relevant to Maynard's 'notoriety' is already covered, along with his photo, in List of Internet phenomena.4er6ty8ui (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena actually appears to violate many of the guidelines noted in WP:NOT - nominating it for deletion may lead to a more interesting discussion. Several Times (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the issue is entertaining. --Aleksd (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit mild. The notability is probably longer than some. Also not nearly as promotional as many bios, although it does hit one of my hot buttons: the word "famous" does not belong in an encyclopedia article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't signed in for months but when I saw this article was up for deletion I decided it was worth doing. This man's notability is established and he has become something of a cultural icon relative to the whole Tron story and I suspect will likely be cited in that regard for years to come. (→Netscott) 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, for obvious reasons. I will say that I have kept my fingers out of the page since very early on, aside from changes that meet WP:AUTO (obvious vandalism, unsourced wrong facts), and will continue to do so. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An explaination of the Tronguy phenomenon needs more than a couple sentences. Jay, are there any other open-source projects you work on that we can add? Frotz (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy even makes commercials. [14] > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht bounce[edit]

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

Newly made up regional music genre that has not yet garnered significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "newly made-up regional music genre" any more than hip-hop or bounce were. The reliable sources are cited in this article. The genre DOES exist and IS growing in popularity. There is no valid reason to delete this article. --Heavy (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources given are reliable independent sources. It may well be real and "growing in popularity" but that doesn't make it notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2011 (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) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it satisfies notability guideline in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see notable coverage on Google, Google News and Yahoo, the one that came even close was a discogs page but it wouldn't hold much on the article.SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no significant coverage from independent sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete While notability as defined by Wikipedia is highly subjective, this article DOES provide verified reliable third-party sources thus satisfying the need for an independent article. Wikipedia's notability standards further state that "Determining notability DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPEND on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Thus, this article should not be up for deletion simply because readers may not have heard of the subject. The fact remains that Yacht Bounce DOES exist, is supported culturally--with or without the vast Internet presence available for older music genres--and is being covered by the entertainment press. --Heavy (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fahri Yaras[edit]

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

Not notable, appears to be an autobiography. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy No indication of wp:notability. Main editor is openly related so so has a high probability of a COI related challenges. (don't beat up on people that disclose including via the user name). Actual wp:notability looks unlikely but possible. Userfy while they can work on possibly establishing wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This research and teaching assistant has a GS h-index of only 6 in a highly cited field. Too early yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citability is quite low and nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I do not see much point in userfying this page at this point, as the subject seems quite a few years from becoming notable. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from linkedin and PDFs. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline A7 speedy. The article presents no evidence of notability let alone anything that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I think I tagged it a while ago as ~~A7, but never learned what happened to it.~~A3, but the creator removed it. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Allesee[edit]

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

Could not find anything at all to establish notability; no reliable sources show up, and nothing mentioned in the biography shows clear notability to begin with. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The statement that he "was with the Chicago White Sox minor league affiliates" gives me pause, especially if he played or managed for a high level minor league team in that era, but neither Baseball Cube nor Baseball-Reference seems to have any indication of him doing so. If he was just the water boy for a Chicago White Sox minor league affiliate, that certainly would not be notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No record of him playing in the White Sox system, no record of him as a coach at La Porte... I can seemingly verify that Tom Allessee played ball at some point and that the other descendants listed existed.. but nothing on George. Spanneraol (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that says the subject played minor league baseball at all. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo, so unless there are some sources that I'm not aware of. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary T. Poole[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod was removed by an IP claiming to be the subject. The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left the following at the IP talk page: "Do you have sources (things other people wrote about you) which establish what is said in the article? If so, you should say so soon as that is relevant to the deletion discussion." Ability to establish is likely if what the article says is true, and suitable sources would resolve both establishability and establishment. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi University Model United Nations[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines as it has no reliable, third-party sources. Disputed PROD. ItsZippy (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be borderline notable if it was about every annual conference, but it's just about one year's. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Delete non-notable event.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, I'm not aware of precedent that AFDs can be on specific revisions. causa sui (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Freemason Exhibition[edit]

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

Let me state this clearly: this likely is a notable topic, and while AfD is not a cleanup, please keep on reading why we should delete this and start from clean slate. Or point me to another venue where the article problems are solvable.

This article has around been since May 2006, when it was started by User:FrontLine as normal stub. Then, in June 2006, User:Respos blatantly copied and pasted [15] contents of this web page of the University of Minnesota.

So we had this copyvio for some 5 years, mostly unchanged, while the article was used as typical Balkanic pissing ground.

Then, in June 2011, User:Свифт [16] "expanded" its contents (while keeping copyvio) with completely unsourced WP:COATRACK, praising Freemasons, Serbian Chetniks and their leader Draža Mihailović, which are completely unconnected with the topic.

In a nutshell, the last clean, reasonable and copyvio-free version is this stub from May 2006. Can we agree to delete all revisions up to that one? No such user (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that most of the article needs deleting. Also, after all of that time it has zero references. I 'spose AFD is not the correct place for this but possibly the fact that it has no indication of wp:notability after 5 years and eligible for deletion is the needed lever. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All that is necessary is to replace it with a translation of the German article, which at least at a superficial reading seems to have no significant problems; there are additional references in the French Wikipedia.Did anyone even look at the other articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Look, I even volunteer to moderately expand this article, to approximately reach the de:Anti-Freimaurer-Ausstellung level. But I'd really like to start from a clean slate, not with easy-to-revert crap from the history. No such user (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should ask for the copyvio revisions to be deleted at WP:CP not here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But from WP:CP, "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)). "[reply]
  I edited the DGG's post, because I think he erroneously substed the contents of {{copyvio-revdel}} No such user (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so he should tag it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revert to 2006 version, and build from there. No reason to revdel everything unless requested by the copyright holder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HomeSav[edit]

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

Article was created by, and has been subject to editing by a sock puppet [17]. It was speedy nominated, and then the speedy was removed by an anon IP account. It was then prodded, and deprodded by the same anon IP account without any improvements to the article by the anon IP, so we are at AfD with the same reasoning as the Prod. It appears to fail WP:ORG. I found one detailed coverage article in CJnews. But that does not appear to amount to significant coverage. It appears too early for such an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough notable mentions that could help this on a encyclopedia. I found this mention but it isn't enough, and I didn't see anything on both Yahoo, Google, and Google News. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little indication of wp:notabiliity, and this appears to be a case where someone already worked that aspect to the max. The three references include: One article in a specialty web site, one in a blog section of a web site, and on couple-paragraph mention on a web site article that was listing companies of that type. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedily closed as keep. This is the fourth, not third, nomination for the same article, and is doomed to fail the same way the others did. Furthermore, in this case, the nom didn't even bother providing a valid reason or justification for the nomination beyond her personal disgust with the topic. I see no reason to disrupt the project with yet another pointless AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wow I just have to say an article about the intelligence, whether sourced or not, on any group or ethnicity should not exist at all, let alone on Wikipedia. This includes the quote, "They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half a standard deviation, than the European average.." I mean what the hell? Is this serious? And I can't believe that it was kept due to a previous discussion with no consensus. It does not matter if it discusses higher or lower intelligence, it is the fact that their intelligence is discussed in the first place. Really. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not about truth or political correctness. The nomination makes no pretense that there is an issue about notability or sources, claiming that articles like this "whether sourced or not... should not exist at all". This issue has already been discussed and addressed before, and the ample reliable and verifiable sources support notability here without question. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict with close) Right now the article looks like BS. The only real comparative data given in the article show only a trivial (and possibly statistically insignificant) difference in intelligence. And, of course, any study that goes near race-based intelligence differences is politically incorrect and will get attacked. But the topic is notable. "Should be written better" is a reason to improve, not delete. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kokondō[edit]

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

This is an article about a relatively new martial art that lacks significant independent sources. My search did not find good sources to show this art passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. I found no independent reliable sources for this martial art. It doesn't seem to be widespread or notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (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 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. The article does suffer from a lack of reliable sources, yes. I'm convinced that these sources must exist, as the sources we do have imply that this martial art has existed for at least a few decades and is taught in multiple locations in the US. It may be best to remove anything without a clear, external source and reduce the page to a stub, but I believe it passes WP:MANOTE. The sources may just exist beyond a simple Google search. Several Times (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks reliable sources and the art fails to show notability. It's not widespread (since the article says the dojos are clustered near South Windsor, Conn.), it's not been the subject of meaningful coverage, and there's no indication of students having notable competitive successes. Instead it seems to be more of a relatively recent splinter (which is a criteria for deletion). If significant coverage from independent and reliable sources exists I couldn't find it and it hasn't been posted in the 2+ years since the article was tagged for lacking independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear notable. A search for sources has revealed a few passing mentions in Black Belt, but nothing substantial so far. The article itself does not provide any indication that the subject is noteworthy amongst the host of other martial art schools in existence. Janggeom (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rig (album)[edit]

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

CSD-A9 tagged for alleged non notability, but the article's been here a while and a few other articles do link to this one. Still, its just questionable enough that I feel an afd is warranted. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A9 anyway, I can't find anything on the band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of sources that establish notability in accordance with WP policy. The primary source has this to say about the album: "I realized I’d just tripped over another one of those Great Lost LPs that might have made a significant contribution to its era but instead languished in the vaults thanks to music biz shenanigans." Sounds like a good case for establishing NON-notablility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The advertising tone of the article needs to be addressed, but consensus seems to be that the article is worth keeping. — Joseph Fox 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrybrook Kitchen[edit]

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

Was CSD-A7 on grounds that it reads like an add, but its not copyright infringement and the article has been here for while. Under the circumstances I feel an afd would be better suited to determine whether the article should stay or go. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ARTSPAM. Reads like promotional material, and no evidence of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in The New York Times, Parents magazine and Kiwi Magazine is sufficient to establish notability, even though some other references aren't independent. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is a respectable reference but there is no "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One you delete the advertising, there is no article left to discuss. No notability related info in the text of the article except the partnership, and the source on that is their own press release. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per North8000. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any other notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from that New York Times mention. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the NYT story. I'm not all that impressed by the Parent web p., which just reprints PR. That they selected it is perhaps notable, but there's no way of telling that from their page. There's a simple standard that I use: If the NYT thinks something worthy of a full story, who are we to second guess the. They choose on the basis of what their readers will think important, which is what an encyclopedia is doing also. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
- WP requires significant coverage rather than whether NYT does a story on it. To put it another way, A topic in NYT does not equate to notability on WP. Hey DGG, you are a bit of an inclusionist arn't you????!!! Don't worry, its just an observation - not a judgement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the NYT full story and the fact this seems to be notable in the allergy food market, something I know a fair bit about, having a gluten intolerance myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is a Food allergy in the United States article which I had split from Food allergy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with neither those who suggest the the NYT coverage isn't signficant (it is) nor those who suggest that the NYT found this topic "worthy of a full article" (the subject of the NYT article isn't the subject of our article) Still, there's enough coverage here for a very modest article, particularly in view of the chapter devoted to them within this book and some other more passing coverage one might find if one had clicked on the books link above. (Glad to know I meet DGG's criteria for notability personally, though, I can't wait to see my bio!) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Music Inc.[edit]

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

Article came up as CSD-A7, but its been here for 3+ years and is apparently well linked to on site. IMO, an afd would be a better venue to decide whether or not to axe the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 4+ year old article still with zero references? But they are the present and/or past label for many bands with WP articles; they probably could establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what kept me from axing it. Its in poor shape to be sure, but it looks like all it needs is some spit and polish to get back up and running. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That the subject is mentioned on other articles is a good start but it doesn't establish notability. I looked around and could find nothing to establish notability. I thought a look at their official website would give some clues but they don't even have a website, just an "under construction" notice (crashmusicinc.com). Another item on my google search is also titled CRASH MUSIC, INC. but is another nearly identical under construction notice for Pavement Music Inc. I found only one news item that even mentions the subject [18] and it doesn't have even so much as a whole sentence devoted to the subject. A book search goes a little better, but still only a few passing mentions, not more than a couple sentences devoted to the subject. There is some independent reporting on the subject but its not significant enough to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for now. Like what was stated earlier, this is a 4+ year old article. It just needs a bit of work to prove itself. I don't honestly have the time, but I do not doubt that this article could be saved. With multiple notable bands being signed or starting with this label, it shouldn't be too tough. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A record company is notable if its had notable bands signed to it. Dream Focus 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a label that has had bands such as Kreator, Malevolent Creation, and Crowbar will definitely have a lot of useful information on it. The sources just have not been edited into the article yet. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't inherit notability from being related to someone famous. A company however is notable by what it has done. What better way to judge a record company, than by what notable bands it has signed? Dream Focus 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the point about inheritability, from WP:ORG : "If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." So a record company having notable bands does not inherit their notability. Maybe someone could find some reliable secondary sources which establish the notability of this organization, but naming bands won't cut it. I was unable to find such sources. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Talk Reggaeton Presents: Top Hitz Of June 2011[edit]

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

Mix compilation with no assertion of notability per WP:NALBUMS from website of unknown notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list created by/on a web site. For the list and article: : Zero references , no indication of wp:notability, and ability to establish that appears unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable list from non-notable source. Agree with North8000 that there is very little hope that sources establishing notablility will be ever found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and other articles created by the same user.--Wahwahpedal (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. However, North8000 concedes that notibility is possible so if someone wishes to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmy Constantine[edit]

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

Self promotion. Wahwahpedal (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zero references, and much of the article is vague promotional type material. But notability appears to be a possibility. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable biographical sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rheem[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, however I'm cautious to cfd the article. Petiatil^»Talk 08:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely not an unremarkable person; he has a WPT title, was a November Niner and is 65th in all-time tournament earnings. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep $5.7 Million in tournament earning [19], WPT title (2008 Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic)[20][21]. former member of the 2008 WSOP Main Event November Nine,[22], winner of the inaugural Epic Poker League [23][24][25]▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 12:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11 (non admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christ channel network[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no indication of notability. Plus there's no article there to look at / no material to potentially save. Just a paragraph of personal commentary. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black meets white[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient references to establish notability, or even common usage of this term. I see what the author is getting at, but it seems like original research to me. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article as written does have the "feel" of OR and the feel of trying to create a neologism whre non exists, the term is not competely unsourcable and has occasionally been used to describe the mixed race of films as listed. In Slow fade to black: the Negro in American film by Thomas Cripps ISBN 0195021304, we have "When black meets white, Robeson coolly fingers a bedspread..." In Hauntings: popular film and American culture by Joseph P. Natoli ISBN 0791421538, we have "This is the point when black meets white." There are a few other examples in books covering mixed race films, and the term is used in a very few news articles,[26] BUT is it not something of recent use, nor is a widely used term. The sparse limited use of the term does not inpart any particuar notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete True but not notable. Do we already have an article on Buddy cop movie? Borock (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Joseph Fox 22:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch magazine[edit]

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

Orphaned stub on an obscure and defunct magazine. No evidence of significant coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article seems to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A periodical that has ceased publication can still be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article was once titled Phil Lancaster (the name of the magazine's publisher is more frequently given as Phillip Lancaster), and perhaps the article should be moved to the person's full name. I have added some references, which I think establish notability for both the magazine and the person. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added two low-quality affiliated sources and one very brief passing mention. That does not add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of either the man or the magazine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps I should mention that I do not support the ideology of the magazine or its founder. A topic can be notable and icky at the same time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you think it necessary to point this out. It really shouldn't make any difference in a discussion. St Anselm (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that a magazine is defunct means that (i) it is not creating new reasons for third parties to write about it & (ii) the longer it has been defunct, the less likely new material will be written about it. Given the scarcity of existing material (let alone "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), I would suggest that this is one more nail in the coffin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on references, and that fact that it is a magazine that published for that length of time, I think it can meet or has met wp:notability. Article also contains useful information. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Ziane[edit]

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

Non-notable player, does not pass WP:Footy (I created the page a few years ago when I didn't know the notability guidelines .. if an admin reads this feel free to delete the article right away) TonyStarks (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:NFOOTY (Why would you want to delete a page you created anyway?). Adam4267 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He never played for the club so he does not pass WP:NFOOTY. Also, I should have been more specific in my original message. When I created the article, I didn't know the exact guidelines for notability (ie. I didn't know you had to play a match at a professional level to be considered notable). In his case, he never played a match for JS Kabylie, he joined the club and left after a few months. That is why I'm proposing it for deletion now.TonyStarks (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he actually played, which means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. While ha has been on contract in fully pro leagues, there is no evidence to suggest he ever actually played in any games. If this can be verified he would be notable, but until ten he his not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-Bits[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A digital video company that was bought out in 1999. Probably speedy delete; don't see anything that makes out a claim of minimal importance, neither in this version nor in history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. No info in text related to notability. A 1-2 sentence article with no references....nothing to be lost. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vihana[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: article is about a semiconductor company, and simply announces that it's been bought up by Cisco. That is not in itself a minimal claim of importance, and there's nothing else there. News search shows up the word appearing in Chinese texts, lists of acquisitions by Cisco, and other things that are named Vihana or some approximation to the spelling. When a big company buys out a small startup, that's a routine event that wouldn't count much for notability if we had a more elaborate article. And I object that this article doesn't contain any nonsense for me to make fun of! (pounds on table.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo, clearly because it's been acquired by Cisco there isn't going be much news on Vihana. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick Google search says there is nothing notable about this company. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Data Systems[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. An information technology consulting company that was bought out in 1999 without even a spammy version in the history to make unreferenced claims of minimal importance. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I didn't see any notable third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP SLAs[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could it use some references and citation to articles discussing what IP SLA is and how it is implemented? Sure. Non-notable? Definitely not. Lahnfeear (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% of the article is their sales material. No article left to discuss once that gets deleted. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article using Wikipedia title conventions is service level agreement. We should eschew obfuscation and not use alphabet soup in titles. That SLA article needs more sources and wikilinks, but do not see any sources in this one either, so perhaps nothing to merge. It seems to be a cut-n-paste from a 2006-era Cisco document by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Ipsla. Would be happy with a merge too, if indeed this acronym is a useful redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Standard Works. — Joseph Fox 22:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Bible and Mormonism[edit]

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

This article is about a book that is non-notable. There is a lot of self-promotion on the web about the book but it is not discussed in secondary sources. I suspect that this article is just another prong in the book's promotion. PRODs to the article have been removed from the article by the article creator without any significant attempts to demonstrate the book's notability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources such as book reviews, that give significant coverage to this book. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and published by an imprint of a group that is dangerously close to the vanity press [27]. Looks like marketing. Keresaspa (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam.--Wahwahpedal (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, either to LDS edition of the Bible or to Standard Works. "The Bible and Mormonism" is certainly a plausible search term. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ihcoyc/Smerdis -- this is a plausible search term, and will allow for retention of attribution. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Standard Works" per Smerdis. "Standard Works" would be preferable to "LDS edition of the Bible" as the former discusses the relationship between the Bible and Mormonism, while the latter is merely an article about an edition of the Bible. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Hernández[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Previously referenced, but reference was to a generic stats page for the player. Never appeared on a team playing in a fully professional league (as per WP:NFOOTY). All external links are of generic stats db pages for the player. Hasteur (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Venezuelan international and appears to have played in the Segunda division. Dunno about WP:GNG but he appears to meet WP:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Venezuelan international is notable. The "generic stats db pages" show that he has played at a notable level per WP:NFOOTBALL. He was a member of the Venezuela squad at the 2011 Copa América. The nominator seems to have a problem with Venezuelans because their first choice goalkeeper (among others) was prodded in July despite amassing almost half a century of appearances at senior international level at that time. [28] Nominating a page for deletion because it's a stub is unacceptable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a source (albeit a stats page) means that this page was NOT unreferenced - after all, it verifies both existence and notability. This player is clearly notable. Giant Snowman 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of said above. His club has been promoted recently to Segunda División, obviously he hasn't played that thing defined in the Wikipedia guidelines as a "fully professional league" (a term that I don't understand entirely, in fact, the Segunda División B is fully professional to me). And the fact that he is an international footballer with his country should be relevant enough, but anyway, is up to you. –HD ^{Ask, comment, talk!} 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of deleting pages which might be missing a reference here and there, we should delete editors who waste our time like this. Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Jurd[edit]

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

Seems to be written as a CV but there are also notability issues - of the sources listed that I am able to view there is either a passing mention of the subject or no mention at all, other sources are primary/database entries. I am unable to find anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Яehevkor ✉ 11:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some of the sources are website/database entries. Many of the websites are company listed websites however the press listed in references are notable press listings and verfied with bonafide press clippings on the official website [29], [30], [31] I believe the note was put on wikipedia in May before the source material was added in July which explains the questioning of the source material note which was added in May. Kjmelf (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the problem is that there are no references that are at once both independent and in-depth. That is, all of the in-depth references are written by the subject and/or official representatives there of (that is, personal website, press releases, etc.) OR they are extremely trivial in nature (that is, where her name may be mentioned, but where her life and work is not discussed explicitly in the sort of detail that WP:N requires). Having a bunch of press clippings which name her various jobs, coupled with self-published autobiographical information, does not really meet WP:N standards. What is needed is sources which simultaneously very in-depth AND which have no personal affiliation to the subject. --Jayron32 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a close case, but I think the independent sourcing is enough to demonstrate that she meets WP:ENT. We can't expect, and shouldn't demand, Kardashian-like coverage for every working performer out there; often the work, not the life, is what's significant for an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make a little point: the sourcing merely proves she has a job. Working as a performer does not make one automatically notable. You can prove anyone has just about any job using the modern internet, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable at that job. That's why the "Significant coverage" clause is in WP:N. Now, one may argue that the existing coverage is significant (I am arguing that it isn't, but argueing that it is would be well within the spirit of having a guideline-and-policy based discussion). However, claiming that ones job title somehow exempts someone from the basic WP:N standards (which is what your argument reads like) probably isn't a very convincing argument for the closing admin to give weight to. --Jayron32 22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am inclined to agree with Jayron32 with regard to the point about notable work, however have seen many Wikipedia pages with less source material for performers who have very few credits to their names. in this case, the subject has had professional acting credits since 1984 as validated on IMdB. Being a notable performer is perhaps under consideration here, but the source material is valid and more extensive than most performers paegs. I guess the final choice will be with wikipedia editor on whether to keep or delete...could go either way 80.169.201.244 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT (doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines for entertainers). Lots of roles, but no indication that she's had any significant role in any notable production. Her character in the two Aussie TV series with their own WP articles isn't mentioned in those articles, so one must assume she had only minor, occasional roles. Note that IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and arguments of the form "other people with less than this have WP articles" fail per WP:WAX. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability at this stage 80.169.201.244 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've advised the page creator of this AFD as this had not yet been done. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

(I relisted because of the late notification--I have no opinion on the article.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject hasn't performed in significant enough roles to meet WP:ACTOR. The fact that an uncredited film role is in the lead sentence is a good example of this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Levy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article about a minor candidate for President for a minor party. Article says that his other political runs include auditor for the state of Vermont, so he is only running for high office for the first time. It also pays as much attention to his potics than it does to the fact that he played Karl Marx. Finally, it is poorly sourced. SOXROX (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Levy is seeking the Socialist Party USA nomination for President of the United States, which is very noteworthy. If an article on Jerry Levy doesn't exist, then he cannot be listed on the page for 2012 Presidential candidates, along with the other candidate for the Socialist Party nomination, Stewart Alexander. He has also run for US Senate on seven different occasions (1982, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000), his run for Vermont Auditor just happened to be the most recent electoral campaign. Pnoble428 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2011 (EST)

Wikipedia does strive for completeness in coverage, however we generally limit that to elected politicians (and nominated politicians, for the office of President), not to aspiring ones. Levy fails WP:POLITICIAN, which means that you'll be most likely to get the article kept if you can argue that he meets WP:BASIC. But right now it doesn't look like he meets that, either. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He'll be notable if he wins the nomination, however at the moment he is not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:BIO. Per William S. Saturn, recreate article if he wins the presidential nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN requires that they actually become nominated by the party for presidential election. No prejudice to recreation if he is nominated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he wins the nomination he'll be notable; if he'd won his race for state auditor he'd be notable. The only way out I can see would be if he could be shown to meet the basic notability criteria (helped by his background as co-chair of his party, perhaps), but the article doesn't indicate that currently. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basim al-Karbalaie[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I didn't see biographical or notable sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to David Markson. Courcelles 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Markson's Tetralogy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Markson's Tetralogy

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

These books have never been referred to as though David Markson's Tetralogy was their title anywhere except this page. The only quotation referring to the term 'tetralogy' from Markson included in the article is of his wanting to dissuade critics from using this term. Chips Critic (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Markson. Otherwise each book could have its own article. No real need to group them together in this article. Borock (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (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) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR, but I don't see enough to delete as uncntested PROD here. Courcelles 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fără Cuvinte[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS, single that has not charted, uses many YouTube videos to establish citations, and contains much a significant amount of prose that is uncited. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we remove all self-published sources, we're still left with something workable: Evenimentul Zilei, Gândul and Realitatea, which are all mainstream media outlets in Romania. Given that Romanian musical press almost doesn't exist, this might be enough for passing the WP:GNG. Of course, the article needs to be pruned of the OR based on youtube videos.- Andrei (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Andrei is right, Romanian press is almost non-existent and that makes it very hard to find reliable sources, I've only put Youtube links to interviews with the group and Loredana Groza to try and support the information about the song and music video and to show the single's release date. The song has charted on the 1Music channel charts, that is the only place it's airing. I've alsoe added the 1Music Channel website and showbiz.ro, well-known Romanian outlets as sources in the article.(talk) User:cutkiller 20:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that it's only charted on the 1Music charts (and that we don't have an article for the organization) it's probably a fair assertion that it hasn't qualified for the "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" claim on the NSONGS list. If there are very few Romanian press sources, then it makes it very difficult to judge notability with the default in our case to not-notable. Hasteur (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the MTV and Europa FM website as sources, as these are major Romanian media outlets and they mention the single. I don't think the Youtube links qualify as "self-published" since they are part of an interview with a TV station that uploaded the video on their own account.User:cutkiller (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 2 August 2011 (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) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omahyra Mota[edit]

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

Google on 'Omahyra Mota' get little, single news hit is trivial mention. The majority of the vanilla-web hits are stright directory listings, like this one at NyMag. Even the coverage related to the People "most beautiful" are trivial. Delete as failing to meet the general notability guideline. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKAs:

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

Comment The GNG is intended to work in conjunction with the SNGs, and is not set to override them. Her work as a fashion model has gotten a certain amount of notice for the last ten years and her verifiable and written of role as Arclight in X-Men: The Last Stand seems to have her pushing at WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those. I've looked through quite a few of the hits that come from those searches, and didn't find anything significant. Was there one in particular that I may have missed? Also, the subject specific notability guides aren't an "or" with the general notability guide, they are shorthand. Items that meet SNGs are presumed to meet the GNG. But that's linked to "rebuttable presumption" on the guideline. If no sources can be found when looked for, then it fails the GNG. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (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) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in google searches either. Lots of mentions-in-passings and directory indexes, but no substantial coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2011 (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 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see much on my Google and Yahoo search that could help a biography aside from IMDb and model listings pages. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hobson[edit]

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

Non-chosen politician for a local (but rather big) local council. Not much media coverage found. Just 25.000 google hits, including several namesakes, Linkedin and Facebook pages. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor municipal candidate. Clearly fails WP:Notability. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A short candidate summary on the election page might be okay; a separate WP:BLP page clearly isn't. CJCurrie (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo that could help the biography. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even consider unsuccessful candidates for the Canadian House of Commons to be inherently notable enough for articles, let alone unsuccessful city council candidates. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiler with a Knife[edit]

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

This article lists no sources, is a stub, and consists mainly of a track list. Nathan2055 ^talk 18:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no assertion nor evidence of notability per WP:NALBUM, or merge: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Bearian (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. A reasonable search finds most hits are from other uses of the term. BusterD (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rename discussion can and should continue on the article's talk pageBeeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deinstitutionalisation of orphanages and childrens homes[edit]

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

A personal essay in article space - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Prioryman (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss, see below Delete This is just someone giving their opinion, it's not an article. And the title is just a sentence which mentions a range of topics. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge to Orphanage? This article contains information that could be more appropriate in the article Orphanage, how about putting some of this information in the alternatives section? ~~Delete, doesn't maintain NPOV.~~ --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking on board the criticism. I've tighten it up, it is a serious issue in child care at the moment. You will notice there are plenty of references as it is an issue that is being widely discussed, but is not yet on Wikipedia. Please feel free to offer more constructive criticism but please don't delete. (By Ninnep)

Following is a copy of posts from my (North8000) talk page:

my article has been updated made impartial - can you please withdraw your request to delete and give more feedback if you think it needs changing further.

The above post is by user Ninnep North8000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ninnep,

Thanks for the note. First you should understand that the comments there are not a critique of your work. They also not intended to say that your writing is badly biased. Actually it is responsibly written, albeit by someone who is an advocate for a cause. And I also laud you for your advocacy. And, in hindsight, some of the comments may be a bit terse/rough. But the crux of those comments are that a Wikipedia article needs to cover a topic rather than advocate something. I see that you are a new editor. Wikipedia, for editors, is somewhat an "alternate universe" that one must learn. For a brand new editor to go right to creating an article sets a pretty rough road for themselves, being forced to learn / deal with all of those things at once. I'd be happy to help if there are any questions.

A second issue is the structure of the title. Deinstitutionalizaiton is something that is done with people, not with facilities as the title states. I think that some type of rename is needed.

The subject(s) involved on this seem like they would make a good article or articles, if those articles do not exist already. And it seems like you would be a good person to build it. My first thought is that you need some time to wikify this, whether it be by delaying a deletion review for a month or two, or by userfying the article so that you can work on it off-line without all of this pressure and then bring it back out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a copy of posts from my (Thompson.matthew) talk page:

Tidied up this article please give any more feedback rather than just saying delete. I think it's pretty impartial now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninnep (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can add --Ninnep (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC) but how about reviewing what I wrote and withdrawing deletion suggestion? --Ninnep (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot stop an AfD, that is for an administrator to decide. If, you think, the article is fixed, then it might stay. I had something urgent happen right after I posted that 'please sign talk pages' notice, I was going to post this notice yesterday, sorry about that. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ninnep is a newcomer who is creating good material. And they have improved the balance of the article. But there is the fundamental issue / question of what exactly the subject and the title are. I hope that there is a way to work this out. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The subject is notable but the piece is currently a long way from being an objective article. Also the title spuriously suggests global scope. I suggest orphanages and childrens homes in the former Soviet Union. (Sorry, I cannot resist the pun: currently it is aN innept attempt at an article.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Ninnep, this means that you can work on it in your user space to resolve these challenges and then put it back into article space later. Happy to give tips etc. if you drop me a note. And I would suggest with a new title. Subject, title and content should all match. RHaworth's suggestion looks likke a possibility. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had another crack at it, I have no idea how to Userfy it and googled it and wikipediad it, also tried a few variations on spelling, but I've put more work into it so that may no longer be necessary. I have added no more non exsoviet content as it is a global issue, but ex soviet areas had it worse and are generally more developed, so are slightly ahead on the closure game. I will continue to add links and countries as I find out more about who is closing, I believe Sudan is too, but have no ref at the moment. Re Title, I would just have gone for deinstitutionalisation but that has gone and I have no idea how to do a disembiguisation sorry, not idea how to spell as it's been used for closing mental asylums round the world. I think it would be a huge mistake to merge as it would stigmatise this even more, but if someone felt they could change the title of this and do the disebiguisation I'd be most greatful --Ninnep (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the Deinstitutionalisation article has it's own issues because it essentially says that the term applies only to psychiatric patents. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one title might be "Deinstitutionalisation of children from orphanages and children's homes" North8000 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest retitle "Deinstitutionalisation of child care services" previously all went into institutions, now to non institutionalised alternatives. With ref to the other version I suggest a rewording the other article to say DI was a word first used to describe psyc patients. And with a disambiguation to point at this article referring to child care services. Re titling is beyond me, I'd be greatful if someone would do that for me, and ideally the disambiguation too. --Ninnep (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds better than my idea. But in the USA, "Child Care Services" and "Child Care" means day care, so that woul dbe confusing.

I could help with the move/redirect etc, but we'd need so see what others think here on this open item.

North8000 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there are any objections to that so perhaps you can just do it? Does an admin automatically look at the delete/keep argument after a week or so or is there something to do to get the decision made and the box taken off the top of the page?--Ninnep (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the closers left this open because it's still "up in the air". I'd be happy to make such changes (anything big related to the other article would need to get discussed there first.) But we need to make sure we're clearly decided. The immediate relevant change is retitling of this article. I'm thinking ""Deinstitutionalisation of children from orphanages and children's homes" is the best we've come up with so far. Agree? North8000 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above, and it needs a new title. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Keep. I see no reason why this article couldn't be matured and improved in userspace. New User:Ninnep shows signs of listening and responding to the feedback provided. Might make other useful contribution. User:North8000 makes wikipedians look good by offering to monitor and mentor the new user. BusterD (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the title I think the process of deinstitutionalisation is more about the system than the kids who happen to be in the system at one point in time. If you can't use deinstitutionalisation of child care services, then perhaps use child care systems or as a final resort child protection services. User:North8000 please go ahead and change. Beyond that what else should I be aiming to mature, I have got a lot of references in and taken out the more opinionated bits.Ninnep (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinions or great ideas the title or great ideas. But, recapping,there aretwo things to point out. In the USA, the the common meaning of "child care" is basically "day care"; caring for someone's children during the day so that they can go to work. The other note is structural; wouldn't you say that "deinstitutionalization" is something that is do to (with) the children, not the facilities? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but please revise title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herjee (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep but It's very much the system, it's in part what you do with the kids in the institution, but it's making sure that for the next generation they wont be sent to institutions. If it has to be driven by US English then DI of child protection systems is closest to the truth. 109.145.16.171 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had another idea. How 'bout "Deinstitutionalisation from orphanages and children's homes". Just a one word change ("of" -> "from") and adding the apostrophe. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - there are entire books written about this. It is our editing policy to develop articles in mainspace. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. BTW, I think naming problems were germane to the AFD discussion because those made it unclear what the subject of the article is. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay~~. Or article about a single research paper, which comes to the same thing.~~ DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG are you serious, it has 20 references - there are DI programmes in many countries, it's not just one paper. Ninnep (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my error, but it remains a POV essay. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I previously changed my opinion to KEEP. I think it clearly meets and has established notability. The title needs changing. May I suggest closing this as "keep" with the understanding that the title will be changed, and then move the title discussion to the talk page of the article? I'd be happy to participate on the title change and help it happen and help make sure it happens. Also to nudge this much-improved article into being one step more Wikified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Altho the article needs some work, it's been a major movement. As usual, a lot of the literature refers to the US. Try a Google book search on Deinstitutionalization orphanages foster [32]. I think the majority of the results are from reliable publishers. There were two or three major waves here; see Orphan trains for the first; another one in the 1970s [33]. If it's kept, I'll expand it some, referenced. Novickas (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The topic is notable, but the article is still relying heavily on wp:primary sources, like the text of various government programs. It needs more secondary sources, like books, newspaper articles etc. Those aren't hard to find in this case; search Google Books & News. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orphanage, I'm sorry, but I really don't think this needs its own article. It just goes over and over the same thing. Cut to the chase and merge to Orphanage. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Administrators User:Herjee has been blocked and User:109.145.16.171's only contribs are to this AfD and the article in question. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herjee has been blocked for socking, but apparently not in this discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more secondary sources, keep the ideas coming and I'll develop this further. There are more secondary sources out there but I don't have time to put them all in this weekend. Ninnep (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable topic. Google news archive search for "Deinstitutionalisation" and "orphanages"[34] shows news coverage of this. More results from a Google book search.[35] Did anyone who said delete even bother looking for sources? Dream Focus 01:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main problem here is the quality of the text in the Wikipedia article, rather than the notability of the topic; hence the {{rescue}} tag. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is NOT cleanup Dream Focus 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many articles have been deleted for being WP:SYNT / WP:SPAM / WP:COPYVIO and similar problems despite the topic's notability, so "AfD is not clean-up" except when the whole article goes by the way of the dodo. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been times where I've weighed in for deletion notability aside, but those were where there was no encyclopedic content, i.e. there would be no article left once spam,. self-promotion etc. were taken out. This article does not have that problem, and also has source-based notability and pretty clear RW notability. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look! [36] The United Nations supports it! Their "global Agenda" is "deinstitutionalization” which is "a new school of thought." Seriously, many nations do it, there a global effort to do this. Even the United Nations is involved. Dream Focus 06:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per sources by Schmidt which still need to be incorporated into the article. v/r - T P 19:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Melikdjanian[edit]

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

Not notable–main claim to fame seems to be he makes YouTube videos as an unpaid hobby Epipelagic (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what would Shane Dawson's, or Amy Walker's claim to fame be? Kingofthesalads (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you have to go there. Shane Dawson is an exception, a YouTube phenomenon who has received independent awards, and outstrips Melikdjanian in user views by many orders of magnitude. This single (ghastly) video by Dawson outstrips in user views the whole collected oeuvre of Melikdjanian by at least a factor of 10. Amy Walker has a (dubious) notability based on her being a professional actress, and what notability she does have is not based on her youtube videos, even though they far outstrip Melikdjanian in user views. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, and is irrelevant. Delete per WP:FILMMAKER, WP:ENT, WP:WEB - fails notability on so many levels... Yunshui (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to the first user, the first time I read your comment it ended with "...as a hobby." Since then, it has been changed to read "... as an 'unpaid' hobby. I am well aware that Shane Dawson is paid for his videos, and you have changed your first statement so that my second one would sound ignorant as I am aware that Melikdjanian is not paid for his videos (unless you count his recent DVD, which is available on his website). Secondly, in the case of Amy Walker, she may be an aspiring actress but her only "actress" credit on her IMDb profile (a very reliable website, if I might add) is for an obscure short film. Her Youtube channel has over 34.5K subscribers and 93 videos, whereas Alan Melikdjanian's Youtube channel has over 23.5K subscribers and 15 videos.

I would also like to mention that Alan Melikdjanian is a real filmmaker, whose resume 'is' available on IMDb, and Amy Walker is an aspiring, self-professed (according to her Youtube description): actress, writer, singer, director, teacher & artist. Amy Walker is little more than a gifted accent mimic. I am sorry for my long post, but I wanted to put this issue to rest. Thank you. Kingofthesalads (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a read of WP:RS again, particularly the bit where it says: "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth." Yunshui (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I believe I already mentioned that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Amy Walker's notability or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Please address the topic at hand. Yunshui (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly - the Internet Movie Database 'is' reliable, but, as you say, I will address the topic at hand. Melikdjanian is, first and foremost, a filmmaker, with a full body of work, who has gained recognition for the few Youtube videos that he has by skeptics all over the world (such as James Randi, Phil Plait, Richard Saunders, etc,) and I feel that he is worthy of an article. I am sorry for drawing comparisons between another article, and it is your privilege to downgrade me.Kingofthesalads (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I was trying to make between Amy Walker and Melikdjanian is that Walker doesn't have a full online resume and Melikdjanian does. I personally believe that this article has been nominated for deletion purely because Melikdjanian is an independent filmmaker. I have never claimed that a person such as Shane Dawson matches up in any way to Melikdjanian.

Is it a written policy that someone deserving of a Wikipedia article must, in some way, be as successful as Shane Dawson? No, of course not; because Dawson, no matter how terrible his videos are, has experienced not only internet popularity, but luck. But saying that Melikdjanian has to be of such high caliber of internet popularity (using Dawson as an example, sorry) is an invalid argument. Melikdjanian has gained recognition, and is it true that people with recognition should be included here? Yes. Is it true that filmmakers should be included here? Yes. Melikdjanian may not be in the most well-known circle of filmmakers, but he is talented and his videos have gained recognition. The first argument, by the way, that I tried to make was that Dawson and Walker make Youtube videos for a hobby, too.

I read WP:FILMMAKERS and and one of the criteria was that every filmmaker must have taken some inspiration from another filmmaker, which is absurd. Not every filmmaker draws on another for inspiration. Some have the creativity to think up new ideas for themselves, such as Melikdjanian. He has created a format; a good format that works well for him. Not everyone deserves a Youtube page, but you forget that Melikdjanian doesn't just make Youtube videos, but he also founded a production company, Amelik Productions, LLC, and a website for serious amateur filmmakers. True, the website, filmnet.com, does not feature on Wikipedia, but then, not every website can. And I sincerely apologize that I have gone on this long, but I don not agree with the mindless deletion of this article. I try not to take this kind of bigotry personally, but I have no choice but to in this matter. Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something else. Melikdjanian participated in the launch of OpenFilm.com Find the reference for that, if you must. Melikdjanian says it himself in one of his podcast interviews, if you can be bothered with that. I honestly feel that people who are not interested in this topic should stay away from it. Only people who can take something from this biography can possibly be happy with the article. It is well-written and informative, after all. If you were interested in this man's cause, you would probably not plaster your opinions over me as if I am a hopeless moron, which I am anything but. I have taken the time to make this article of as high quality as I can: His podcast interviews, websites, references that people can trust, and in the course of, say, two weeks, someone comes along to delete this article. At least try to make it of sufficient quality, and find some distinction in this person, before you blatantly insult it. Keep your opinion to yourself. Look him up if you doubt me. Goodbye, and drive safely. Go annoy someone else.Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't much of a discussion, is it? If you type in to Google, or Bing, or Yahoo, or whatever - discussion definition you may be pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read any of this. I am a newcomer, okay! People shouldn't be tramping on me yet! Now it's your time to speak up. Tell me why this article is bull****, go on...Kingofthesalads (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last post for now. I am sorry if I have repeated myself, but even if I have, that way you might take what I say into consideration: At least tell me something good about this article, then another, then another.... then balance the positives with the negatives. Well done. Now evaluate. I can tell you, without hesitation, that the positives far outweigh the negatives. You may think that I am speaking utter garbage, but just do it, pleaseKingofthesalads (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You appear to be labouring under some basic misunderstandings over how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS for the policies regarding sources and WP:NOTE for the project's guidelines on notability,. As far as sources go, the principal ones for this article are YouTube and IMDb, neither of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipeida due to the fact that anyone can edit them (by the same rather ironic token, Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable source). As far as notability goes, Melikdjanian has yet to: a)be widely cited by peers and successors; b) become widely known for creating a new concept or technique; c) create a significant or well known work that has been the subject of multiple reviews, a book, or a feature-length film; or d) create work that has won significant critical attention. These are the criteria for notability under WP:FILMMAKER. Since he does not pass any of the these criteria, and does not appear to be covered by any reliable sources, he does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Yunshui (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is my fault. I have tried to create a Wikipedia article of sufficient quality - but I failed. I will try to find someone more notable next time. SaladKing talk 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. The article has been put together nicely ~~but the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ACTOR~~. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Am striking delete and changing to keep due to all the good work that Schmidt has done in the following paragraph. Yes he does meet WP:GNG. My apologies for failing in my research. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verfiable works meets WP:GNG AND WP:CREATIVE. Some even up on Funny or Die [37]. Quite an in-depth article about the individual in Miami New Times: "South Florida superhero Captain Disillusion talks ghosts, superpowers, and skepticism" Apparently, they thought "Captain Disillusion" worthy of notice. So does Fortean Times [38] ComicsAlliance [39] Discover [40] Skeptics Guide [41] The Skeptic Zone [42][43] Sun Sentinel [44] Home Media Magazine [45] Podcasting News [46] Tech Journal South [47] and Daily Grail [48] It would seem he and his work are the subject of critical commentary and review in multiple independent sources. Kinda looks to meet WP:CREATIVE's #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Go figure, such a strange young fellow too. Time to weed out the article's bad sources and replace them with the good. That's a matter for regular editing, and not deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hagey[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. No RS, the only refs are self-published, unreliable (IMDB) or trivial (a university mention of a student position). Nowhere near the standards demanded for BLP. Looks like a vanity page. See also the related WP:NEO at Victrolacore. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this bio is about someone (me) who is a published non-fiction author and award winning television creator/producer that has also earned a Masters degree with distinction at Trinity College while serving as their student Head of Divinity. Relying only on Google for notability may be quite limiting in this case. I would like to echo the argument made by Hoary in another deletion debate. The notability of every contestant on Big Brother seems to set the bar fairly low. Is notability only concerned with how many sources reference a person for reasons of celebrity gossip? Hagey has also written for the Comics Journal as a critic and interviewer, famously examining Dave Sims controversial Reads essays. This article has existed since 2009 and has only been marked for deletion debate as I updated it recently. If there is more, or different information that is more appropriate for this page please let me know. I have indicated Amazon as RS for authorship of book, and IMDB for television production. If there is a more RS for Zero Avenue needed, I can see what I can find. The program documented the West Coast cultural scene extensively in the 90s, covering many artists who went unnoticed in the mainstream media at the time. Is there doubt it existed? --Humble Servant (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principle here is that writing for an august journal conveys no notability. Only if your work for this journal is then commented on by others, does that convey notability. There is no real doubt here that Jonathan Hagey has written for various publications, or that he has a Masters degree - however so do a great many people, and the bar is certainly higher than that. IMDB is a good indicator of notability (implying that further research will likely be fruitful), but it's just too unreliable to trust on its own. If the work for Zero Avenue or the Comics Journal was truly significant, then there will be further reviews of it, or citations to it. Did Dave Sim reply in turn? Did this piece become part of the corpus of cited commentary on Dave Sim?

I sympathise with the "Big Brother" problem. That's the other end of the problem here - tawdry celebrity might not count for much, but it leaves an obvious footprint and thus meets our simplistic bar trivially easily; 'slebs almost all qualify, pitiful though that situation is. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the celebs. To simplify the discussion of notability I'll focus on the Dave Sim article. That article is referenced and is a central piece that affects the views on Sims work to this day. It is mentioned in detail in his wikipedia entry and eventually lead to Sim to write a letter to his mailing list requesting the reader sign an online petition (it can be found on ipetitions but the site cannot be linked to from here) that has requests to sign it posted on other blogs. It is mentioned in discussion groups about Sim and his work Cerebus in the Cerebus Yahoo group; it has affected Sim's perspective of his own work so much that he wrote a rebuttal; is listed as seminal in his criticism as a misogynist on his Facebook page; is discussed in the Comic Book Resources Forum; and is mentioned by Douglas Wolk on page 290 of his book, "Reading comics: how graphic novels work and what they mean". I can source more if that would help.

As for Zero Avenue, I know there are numerous mentions of it on artists lists of press coverage. --Humble Servant (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, what is found on the internet does not convey to enhance his notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the additional sources cited for the Comics Journal article to see if they change your position.--Humble Servant (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only likely real notability is the claim to co-authorship of "the seminal pop culture program Zero Avenue". I'd like to see an article about that program first. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from IMDb.SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand[edit]

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

I would think that if none of the people on the list are WP:Notable after a year of this lists being here, then the entire list should be considered for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE is the closest I can think of, but I have never seen a complete "list of" Redlinks before. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Every name on this list is a redlink" does not automatically entail "No name on this list is notable." I don't know if we have a notability or outcomes guideline that specifically helps us deal with ambassadors, but I would have thought they were inherently notable, and this list is encyclopedic and necessary for the eventual organization of these articles. Weak keep, or at absolute worst, merge to Russia-Thailand relations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If other Lists of Ambassadors of X to X exist, don't think there is any sense in deleting this one. GreyHood ^Talk 09:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many others do exist, but none of the ones I saw in my cursory look were composed entirely of redlinks. But again, as I said in my vote, I'm for keeping this one on the hopefully-not-fallacious grounds that a) ambassadors are notable and b) a list of ambassadors is encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (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, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ambassadors are notable per consensus on the talk page at WP:DIPLOMAT. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Talk page happens to be talking about singular people that have Articles, not lists compleatly composed of redlinks. From reading WP:DIPLOMAT, individually they currently fail that, I think WP:POSITION is appropriate to read at this point. To me, it looks as though this list exists just for the sake of having a list. Its simply a regurgitation of information that is available eleswhere. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:LISTPURP which states "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space." Emphasis mine. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "....not the main space." means ???? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, I'd still think the list is useful and would rather see the individual Ambassadors' pages updated, rather than delete this page for lack of info. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a problem with the list having only red links since the topic itself is encyclopedic, and their inclusion on the list is based on whether they were in fact ambassadors to Thailand, and that is regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own articles - frankie (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By our established standards for ambassadors, every one of them is individually notable. The criteria for lists of this sort require eligibility ofr Wikipedia articles, not removal of the list because they have yet to be written. This is a first step; this is how the encyclopedia always has grown DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frankie and DGG, or incubate. 24.97.138.94 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry Up, We're Dreaming[edit]

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

Contested PROD with the following rationale:

soon to be released albums get articles on wikipedia all the time.

Unreleased album by M83 obviously does not qualify for WP:NALBUMS. A single from the album has apparently been released^{[citation needed]}, but unreleased albums that aren't covered in-depth by secondary sources don't belong on WP per similar reasoning at WP:TOOSOON. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yunshui (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this unreferenced article unless someone can produce evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found decent coverage by some reliable sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We got significant coverage from Stereogum, Pitchfork and Spin. So yeah, I would say this article has evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2011 (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) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus seems to be 3 keep, 1 delete (I'm not sure what side I, Jethrobot falls on). However, I think this deletion debate should end because "title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label," and therefore, the album can have an independent article. By the way, in response to I, Jethrobot, here is a link to the first single from the album, via Rolling Stone. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough information for an article. Close enough to release to make deletion pointless.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, we have an album title, release date and tracklisting. The non-trivial coverage [at Pitchfork, Spin, Under the Radar, Stereogum] added by User:Thomsonmg2000 demonstrates the subject meets WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both User:Thomsonmg2000 and User:Gongshow are right, this meets the criteria on multiple levels, as stated. Nothingcorporate (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens Pluijmaekers[edit]

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

Contested PROD, where editor added primary and other non-independent sources. Subject is a player who is on a team that has won several awards for tournament play in a first-person shooter. Much of the individual's notability, therefore, is from his team. Furthermore, the current sources are the subject's personal profile, facebook page, and info from the team the subject played on. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator added the following to the talk page:

hey, lauke is probably the greatest Unreal tournament player ever, right up there with players like Gitzzz and winz. he should have a wiki page so when people search for him it would be easy to read about him, as e-sports certainly is getting bigger. and the community needs it resource. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional gamers can be notable. However, when only three non-Wikipedia Google hits come up, things are not looking good. Sources in article are not reliable. Therefore, doesn't meet WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there was a typo in the name of the subject, Plujimaekers instead of the correct Pluijmaekers. I've corrected this. After correction, there are more Google hits including at least one reliable source, suggesting a possible marginal notability. Additionally, the name is sometimes spelled Pluymaekers giving further hits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The subject also has an article on the German Wikipedia. --Lambiam 09:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - Good coverage at webwerlde[49] (where the surname is spelt "Pluymaekers"), further verification at BBC News, Sohu. Perhaps not quite the significant coverage that the WP:GNG asks for, but I'm also considering the additional kinds of criteria given by WP:NSPORT. Marasmusine (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: those variant names and new refs need to be in the page not the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2011 (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) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm prepared to accept world championships in anything as notable , but I am unclear what of the various tournaments listed have that status. The various Wikipedia articles are of no particular help that I can see. Perhaps what we really need is an article about these competitions in general. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He took gold in Unreal Tournament 2004 at the World Cyber Games in 2004, which, I think, qualifies as a world championship. --Lambiam 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficiently notable, as evidenced by coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Adams[edit]

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

The prod was a removed and one CD review was added. The review even says, "he's going to languish on in relative obscurity." Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that this is a project of the former frontman of a notable band, deletion is clearly not the best option here. There is more coverage out there ([50], [51]), and even if it can't be expanded significantly it would still be appropriate to merge it to a section of The Broken Family Band.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (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) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are thin and don't give him enough standing notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gothoskar[edit]

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

Last names may be inherently notable (?) but this article has been uncited for three years and is making very specific claims about origin. If those claims are removed then there is nothing left to the article other than "Gothoskar is a last name". Sitush (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (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) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find sources substantiating the claims about the surname in the current article, nor was I able to find any general etymology information about this family name. Of course, we have articles about last names, like Smith (surname), but there just isn't any reasonable sources that could make this into an article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Fiatmita[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this beauty queen. Please note that in this article, Miss Bali does not apparently refer to the person who goes on to Miss World nor Miss Universe, but instead Miss Indonesia Tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Bali_2003), a contest we don't have an article for. Additional sources and/or clarifications welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see sources on Google and Yahoo that could aid a biography. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Tungko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

only mention of its existence is an article which mentions it besides the plan of an MRT Station in San Jose del Monte which the editor who added it placed in SM Supermalls Rxlxm (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to redirect. Crystalballery.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:23, 9 August 2011 (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) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. PaintedCarpet (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider deleting most of the many articles on even the actually built small SM shopping centers, One article about the chain should do it, and the rest is for their web site. these articles are the quintessence of NOT DIREcTORY. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Kennedy[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a very major company such as Avaya is notable. That position meets the ANYBIO specification of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." The chief executives of such companies are part of the historical record, and are always discussed extensive in the books that are written about the company, though it is not reasonable to expect such book coverage of the present ceo, ANYBIO was given as the only argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 8 August 2011 (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) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Avaya. It is not true that the president of a notable company inherits that notability. Being tapped as CEO is not "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." This CV does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I can't call it a biography, since so much basic info is missing. Apparently he sprang into existence the day he first got a college degree, and had no birthplace, birth date or family. Edison (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Search of Google News archive from the year 2000 to the present shows 100 clips, demonstrating significant coverage in publications such as InformationWeek. Here's his Forbes profile. Kennedy is also a member of the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (see here). Definitely notable. The article is in pretty bad shape, so I think time permitting I'll expand it. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment"Definitely notable" because he is a member of a nonnotable committee? I disagree. The raw number of GNews hits is not a valid index of notability. Many of them derive from such things as a company's press release that the guy is coming on board or is leaving, and the raw number vastly overstates the notability. Others are passing references ("Joe Blow will report to Kevin Kennedy") or have a brief quote from him, not really an indication of notability. Do any actually provide biographic information rather than resumé (education and jobs) information? The best (for notability) articles should be independent (not a press release or a thinly veiled reprint of one) and have coverage of him, not just a quote about the company from him. Could you also take a look at Charles Giancarlo, a similarly anemic bio article about another CEO of the same company, but whose AFD was closed after only one day? Edison (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read any of the material? The Forbes profile is full of biographical data. The news articles (in multiple languages) do indeed include many quotes from Kennedy, but they also include many articles for which he is the main focus. As for that "non-notable" committee, we actually have an article on the office to which it belongs. (The presidential advisory committee he's on is a pretty big signifier of prominence - take a look at some of the other committee members, who are all very high-level telecom executives for which we already have articles: Dan Hesse, Clayton M. Jones, Edward Mueller, Ivan G. Seidenberg, William H. Swanson). Want more sources? Here he is being interviewed on CNBC. Here is is as the major focus of a Reuters article. Here he is giving the keynote address at Enterprise Connect, the big annual convention. Here he is in an interview with InfoWorld. Here he is in an article with Forbes on his strategy to beat Cisco. Here he is in an interview with CRN Magazine. This is an easy call. Neutrality^talk 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you actually read the Forbes "profile?" It is nothing but another resumé. It reads like he is applying for a job. Where does it or the other proferred references mention his parents, his birthdate, or his home town, all of which are essential information for a purported "biography?" He cannot "inherit notability" from other members of some committee he was on. Which of the "100's" of articles actually have him as the "main focus," or provide "significant coverage " of him as required by WP:BIO and WP:N? Quotes from him about the company are inadequate to prove he is notable, and only suggest that perhaps he should be mentioned in the article about the company, to furnish information about it. Then you offer a ref from CNBC via Avaya, where he talks about one of their gadgets. The interview is about the gadget, not about HIM. The next article you offer, from Reuters, is about an acquisition by Avaya, not about the man at all. The keynote reproduced from some website called "nojitter" (reliable source?)is about something called the "SIP" interface, and says nothing about the man in question. The interview at Infoworld was about the company's "collaboration strategy" and not about Kennedy. We learned zero about him. The Forbes article shows him holding a laptop, but tells us nothing about him at all. The CRN piece is the text of a speech he gave at his company about business strategy, and is not really about the man, nor is it remotely an "independent" source. Is "CRN" a reliable source in any event? More than foot stomping and hand waving is needed to substantiate claims of notability. I agree that it is an easy call. "Delete" or perhaps "Merge" to the article about the company. Edison (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am genuinely astonished. It seems that no matter what sources I show, all are dismissed. The many reliable, detailed sources that prominently feature Kennedy in relation to Avaya are dismissed as being "about the company, not about him." And the many reliable, detailed sources that deal specifically with him (like the Forbes profile previously linked and - here's a new one - this profile on BusinessWeek) are dismissed as being "like a resumé." First of all, I'm not sure what artificial distinction you are drawing between "biographic information" and a "resume." These profiles by Forbes and BusinessWeek aren't random self-published pieces taken from Monster.com; these are from reputable publications and include tons of information about Kennedy's education; his past positions; his membership on various corporate boards; his compensation, and so on. If you want more "personal" information, there's a post on McGee-Smith Analytics on Kennedy's background, his friends, and even his Irish background (!) As for an individual's parents, birthdate, and hometown being "essential information" - there is no absolutely no policy to support that claim. That info is nice to have, and should be included when it can be properly referenced, but it's not "essential" to make an article notable, especially when there is an enormous wealth of other information about the individual. As to reliability of sources, as anyone who takes the few minutes to look them up can see, NoJitter.com (formerly Business Communications Review magazine) and CRN Magazine are a blog and a trade publication, respectively, by UBM plc. They conduct original reporting and appear to be reputable trade publications. BCR appears to have been published for many years. Neutrality^talk 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for taking the time to post additional thoughts. I'll take your word that the "nojitter" and BCR are RS. The profiles are just bits of business resumé. The articles which have some in-depth coverage of his business career such as the 2008 nojitter are of some use in supporting notability. I object to a biography which only contains information about someone's work at a particular company. If no reliable sources have talked about his life outside his college credentials and his high level business positions, then I question his notability. If we take some other business leaders of the past, say Henry Ford or George Westinghouse, lots of complete bio information has been published. Or consider modern business figures like Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs. We learn about their birthdate, their parents, their hometown. They do not spring to life the day they completed their education as does Kevin Kennedy. If the published information is restricted to his college degree through his present business position, then it is appropriate to mention him in the article about the company, to avoid having a plethora of "vanity corporate biography" resumé-stubs. These are horribly selective, and promotional in tone, and when they are all that has been published, sources are lacking for a balanced biographical article. If being head of a company of a certain size provides "inherent notability," comparable to having certain levels of political office, then WP:BIO should be modified to state as much. Edison (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for continuing the discussion. I think it is really excellent that we have people making robust challenges to articles, and even though I disagree I really respect that you have taken the time to discuss. There is little left to write that I have not already exhausted above. You write that you "question his notability" because "no reliable sources have talked about his life outside...his high level business positions." My response is: He is notable because of his high-level business positions; he doesn't require extensive additional coverage of his non-business pursuits to make him notable. We wouldn't delete Butch Otter because "no reliable sources have talked about his life outside his political positions"; we wouldn't delete Patty Griffin because "no reliable sources have talked about her life outside of her entertainment industry pursuits." I suppose we have to agree to disagree here. Neutrality^talk 05:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a multimillionaire (Forbes cites 5.9 million for just 2009 just from Avaya), a business person on the board of directors of several large companies and an author. I have added several citations and additional content; I agree that we need to add additional content and citations. There are thousands of them, I just added a few, and will add more later. Geek2003 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. For now, it should not hurt to keep the article, judging by consensus here. — Joseph Fox 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic dialects of Greece[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CFORK mainly of Macedonian language and dialects, and also of Bulgarian language. This artificial grouping of various dialects from two different languages has absolutely no linguistic basis. The dialects discussed in the article, for the better part, are afforded scholarly linguistic analysis on their own pages (Lower Prespa dialect, Solun-Voden dialect, etc.). This is a unique case and makes as much sense as creating Slavic dialects of Italy or Slavic dialects of Hungary, etc., based on somewhat related, yet linguistically different, dialects of seperate languages. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." Lunch for Two (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Merge with Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is acceptable per discussion below. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is an illogical nonsence. Jingby (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merging with Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, or at least re-shuffling material between these two in such a way that linguistic and political/historical material are divided more sensibly and don't get duplicated. I don't see this as a fork of Macedonian language; if anything, it's a sub-article of it. The special sociolinguistic situation of these dialects is the unifying factor here, much more than any structural dialectological unity (which, I agree, probably doesn't exist). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, if the only unifying factor here is a socio-political one (However, again it is dealing with two distinct group one in Macedonia, the other in Thrace), then this would normally be insufficient to warrant a seperate article, overlapping with roughly 10 other articles where a scholarly approach is taken. Most of these factors are already discussed at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. Is extending the "Education and language" chapter on Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia sufficient to merge the two?
I dispute that it is not a fork of Macedonian language. The fact that according to the title somehow Macedonian language = Slavic dialects?, presents a pov in its own league. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. It's an over zealous content fork and I see no merit in merging the content with Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia which should also be nominated for deletion. They are invented excuses to link the words "Slavic" with "Macedonia". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Striking recommendation due to the nominator's extreme POV. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (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) 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see it as a fork. The article specifically says that not all of the dialects are dialects of Macedonia,but some are Bulgarian. I gather there are also dialects intermediary between those two. Apparently what language the dialects are considered to be dialects of is disputed, or at least has been called different things in different periods. The proposal to delete Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia failed, and so should this. They are both valid topics. Given the political situation with minorities in this region, I suppose politics may have a role in the formation of these articles, but it seems equally that it has a role in the desire to remove them. From the point of view of an nonspecialist, it seems a valid article. There are Slavic dialects spoken in Greece, they have the common property of being Slavic, so why not discuss their common aspects in an article under this title? The way the articles is set up is clear and aids understanding. DGG ( talk ) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you are right in saying that the langauges are both Slavic however the relationship they have between each other is not simply one language continuum. Two disparate languages (to be more precise, forms of language) have been united in the article. Speakers in Greek Macedonia form an unrecognised Christian minority group speaking dialects of the Macedonian language, whereas those speaking Slavic dialects in the region of Thrace are have recognition Muslim Pomaks speaking the Smolyan dialect of Bulgarian. The two groups themselves are completely seperate, however seem to be united (I use this in the most broad sense of the word) in this article by the fact that they both speak Eastern South Slavic dialects.

I feel that sufficient coverage is given to the political situation of the speakers at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia whilst the dialects themselves, accompanied with linguistic analysis covering all of the dialects at Lower Prespa dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect, Kostur dialect, Nestram-Kostenar dialect, Solun-Voden dialect and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect. I agree with Fut. Perf's idea about merging it with Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, which for the most part has already occured. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. I agree that there is useful material here, and the main unifying theme seems to be the way that dialects of Bulgarian and Macedonian came closer together in Greece because of various pressures. But these two articles seem to me to really belong together as one (since the linguistic and cultural aspects are necessarily intertwined) — and, of course, there will be disputes over what name to use, and I have a problem with this article's title because "Slavic dialects" sounds like a put-down (using "dialect" as referring to a minor or second-class language). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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