Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 30

< 29 August	31 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 delete per WP:SNOW. This is not an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Loverterian's Decree[edit]

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

Original research, essay; PROD removed by author. GILO A&E⇑ 23:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to know what part of WP:NOT to cite as a rationale, since there are so many ways in which this thing fails to resemble an encyclopedia article. I'll go with WP:NOTFORUM. Deor (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could make it a contest, and see how many legitimate reasons to delete this "article" can be advanced before someone closes this debate. One per customer, please. I will take no original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MADEUP — frankie (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, unencyclopedic, unsalvageable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced CapMan07008 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all reasons above. ItsZippy (talk) 18:45, 5 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. Vigorous defense by User:Redhanker, but consensus is that he does not meet the notability guidelines.Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Lamb[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable political activist. Has clearly written various stuff, but has much been written about *him*? bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous prod. The deprodder said they were going to improve the article, but this has not happened and I don't think it's possible given the lack of coverage he has received. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lamb is one of the more prolific authors on mideast issues and news sites as mentioned in the article and by any web search, generally supporting Palestine rights. He is also a book author and associated with a number of peace organizations as also listed. The only reason being given for deletion is that he is "not notable". Can an activist who is so widely published and broadcast not be notable if Russia Today and Press TV, both supported by governments, think he is notable enough to have him as an expert and guest?

- Al Manar (Lebanon TV)
- Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace
- Counterpunch.org
- Veterans Today
- islamtimes.org
- middle-east-online.com
- Pacific Free Press
- Palestine Civil Rights Campaign
- PressTV (Iran TV)
- RamallahOnline
- Russia Today

These are only a few of the outlets on which Lamb is posted or broadcast. Redhanker (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined on Wikipedia as being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources covering the subject of the article. Further, the requirements for articles on living people are much more stringent. We cant have an article that does not have a single third party secondary source covering the subject of the article. nableezy - 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I like Mr. Lamb, I read his work regularly. But he has not been the subject of any third party reliable sources and as such there should not be an article about him. This article fails both WP:N and WP:BLP. nableezy - 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of coverage of his being shot in Libya, I've added it to the articleRedhanker (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:N and WP:BLP as pointed out above. No independent coverage present in the article. I don't see a good case for WP:AUTHOR exceptionalism here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, he has been published by a huge number of independent news outlets, and covered by many news outlets, as well as being call on as notable expert by Russia Today and PressTV which are both supported by governments. Is that not exceptional? Lamb is not some self-published author or blogger. Redhanker (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just came to this article (brought by Google) looking for information about this guy: mention of him is all over the place, especially now that he's in Tripoli reporting some rather strange stuff about the fall of Gaddafi. It would be good to have a decent article on him here on Wikipedia. (Oh, and here's someone else wanting information on Franklin Lamb.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that one blogpost by somebody who doesn't know who Franklin Lamb is, are there any sources which discuss him? bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

" He seems to be a leading advocate for palestine rights given the huge number of outlets that publish his articles (independent of the subject). I find it beyond belief that someone who is called on to be an expert on the topic of Middle East politics by none less than Russia Today (one of the most popular youtube news channels) and Iran's Press TV is "not notable", or that he's not notable because he appears on news sites that often carry controversial theories not covered by mainstream "reliable" media. He is notable and people seek information on him because he expounds such controversial viewpoints (he has called the Libyan democracy fighters "terrorists"), or that acts as one of the strongest western advocates for human rights groups such as Hezbollah, and Wikipedia serves a much broader audience than Lambs usual independent media outlets. Redhanker (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Intel Hub

Intel Hub calls him a "prominent activist": The Palestine Civil Rights Campaign-Lebanon confirms reports that Franklin Lamb was shot at approximately 11:45 a.m. on Sunday August 21 in Tripoli, Libya outside of the Corinthia Hotel where he has been staying. A search shows this event has been covered by at least Uprooted Palestinians, dandelionsalad.wordpress.com, whatreallyhappened.org, prisonplanet.com, www.scoop.co.nz,www.activistpost.com,truthiscontagious.com, www.wat.tv, www.infowars.com, www.salem-news.com so at least these blogs and newsites consider Lamb to be worth noting.Redhanker (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those sites are happy to repeat Lamb's words because his words agree with their editorial line. Simply agreeing with Press TV's stance on some aspect of middle-eastern politics does not make a person notable. Come on - infowars? Prison Planet? Anybody who believes in Bilderberg or the New World Order conspiracy theories, and who can string together a coherent paragraph, can get a mention by sites like that. That's a very low bar - much lower than the notability guideline. One might as well argue that parents of some "vaccine damaged" kid are notable cos their words are repeated on a hundred different alt-med sites. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin is notable, along with Russia Today and PressTV and Counterpunch precisely because he his information may be unreliable as one of the more prolific apologists for Hezbollah and the Gaddafi regime. Articles on persons with apparent ties to organizations considered by some governments to be "terrorists" are routinely callled for deletion on the dubious basis of notability even when covered by the mainstream press. The conspiracy-oriented press has a great amount of influence and popularity, certain by the number of hits any search of "Franklin Lamb" will attest, and many demonstrably unreliable conspiracy theories are covered on Wikipedia as long as the sources are notable, if not neccesarily reliable as even known propoganda channels, as many have called Russia Today are notable, as are most of their guest experts. Deleting this article makes it difficult for people to do unbiased research on this person and his controversial views. The notability guideline clearly is meant for the self-published, not people widely published on hundreds of conspiracy and antiwar oriented outlets and blogs with thousands of published articles and state-supported media outlets. The "alternative" media is full of notable persons who escape scrutiny precisely because they have been avoided by mainstream outlets such as CNN and the New York Times. I am advocating keeping this article precisely because I believe his views (and those of the outlets who promote him) deserve more critical scrutiny rather than hidden from public view. Redhanker (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do "controversial views" or "avoided by mainstream outlets" exempt a subject from wikipedia's notability guidelines? bobrayner (talk) 14:50, 29 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone brings forward significant coverage of Franklin Lamb himself as a biographical topic in multiple, independent reliable sources. Until that coverage is produced, he's simply not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Nothing here that requires the person appear on a western mainstream news network to be noteable. As mentioned above, the shooting of Lamb as well as his on-the-spot coverage of Libya conflict is the actual biographical subject of articles in Uprooted Palestinians, dandelionsalad.wordpress.com, whatreallyhappened.org, prisonplanet.com, www.scoop.co.nz,www.activistpost.com,truthiscontagious.com, www.wat.tv, www.infowars.com, www.salem-news.com Is there anything in the guidelines that contributions to alternative media, no matter how extensive, are not notable? Surely the notability guidelines do not call for deletion of a person so notable that he is relied upon to be a topic expert by state supported Russia Today and PressTV (Iran) internet television media. His biography listed on a number of the websites and magazines that list him as an official contributor. Is it neccesary for notability only to be a contributor of a western new network such as ABC or Fox, which are sometimes called propoganda outlets as well? The notability guidelinews is clearly for someone who is literally unheard of besides self-publishing and self promotion, not someone whose articles are republished on dozens of websites and blogs and is consistently represented on more than one top-rated internet news channel as a topic expertRedhanker (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here here is interviewed by another party, including a short biography;. There is nothing to indicate this is an unreliable source, or that this person has not made enough public contributions to be notable. Perhaps the real reason for deleting the topic is because of controversy over his views? As long as coverage is a neutral point of view, there should be no call to delete the topicRedhanker (talk)

intifada-palestine.com ISRAEL WILL NOT COLLAPSE PEACEFULLY BUT IT WILL DISSOLVE: DR. FRANKLIN LAMB Interview by Kourosh Ziabari Dr. Franklin Lamb is Director of the Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of “The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon” and is doing research in Lebanon for his next book. Lamb has been a Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon. He earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil, and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics. As a Middle East expert and commentator, Dr. Lamb has appeared on Press TV, Al-Manar and several other media outlets. His articles and analyses have been published by Counter Punch, Veterans Today, Intifada Palestine, Electronic Intifada, Opinion Maker, Dissident Voice, Daily Star and Al Ahram. Dr. Lamb generously accepted my interview requested and joined me to discuss the recent developments in the Middle East including the Libya civil war, Bahrain massacre and Egypt’s revolution. What follows is the complete text of my interview with Dr. Franklin Lamb, political commentator, university professor and Middle East expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, intifada-palestine.com is an advocacy website and accordingly does not qualify as a reliable, independent source for the purposes of establishing notability here on Wikipedia. The brief biographical sketch is used as an introduction to a much longer article by Lamb himself, and therefore would not be acceptable for establishing notability even if the article in question was published by a reliable source rather than an advocacy website.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm posting here that I was CANVASSED at my talk page to opine here. My opinion is that I am not familiar with the topic, but question the methods involved in bringing it to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother, but I had noticed that were able to help out AFDs when it was claim that a subject that was the subject of sigificant news coverage was "not notable". This subject is prolific contributor across many news sources, including state supported television networks, and has been the subject of coverage himself as the vicim of a shooting, yet it is claimed this subject is "not notable" because he is mostly covered by non-mainstream sources. Is this an appropriate usage of notability to justify deletion of an article? Redhanker (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if his being shot was extensively covered, the article would still fail under WP:BLP1E. Being a contributor, prolific or otherwise, to various media sources, be they mainstream or not, is not the criteria for inclusion. The problem with articles based entirely on the person's own writings is that we end up with an article with little to no actual biographical information and only a collection of quotes that a Wikipedia editor thinks is important. That isnt an encyclopedia article. Unless there are sources actually about Lamb there should not be an article here on Lamb. nableezy - 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) Does not fulfill WP:N yet. More sources would help. Lamb is mentioned as Director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace but where is the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.germany (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 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. The keep !voters' main concern seems to be that the article might become notable in the future - the article can, of course, be recreated then (or restored by contacting me). — Joseph Fox 12:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biology Open (journal)[edit]

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

DePRODded by anonymous IP. PROD reason was: "New journal, to be launched later this year. Has not yet had time to become notable, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Nothing has changed since the dePROD, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Policy may say we should delete this but common sense says that editors have better things to do than debate, delete then recreate articles. We can afford to wait a few months or a year even and see how this develops. --Kvng (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until notability is proven. Wikipedia does not have a crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete until it has enough of a track record to pass one of the WP:NJournals criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable journal that hasn't launched yet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everything above. When and if the journal meets WP:NJOURNAL, then it can have an article, but not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few times I disagree with Crusio. Considerthe the quality of their other journals, a new journal by Company of Biologists is certain to be notable DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per sound analysis by DGG, above. — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think open-access journals are fantastic, but this one fails WP:GNG. And WP:NJOURNAL. And there are no independent ghits that I can see. And no issues have yet been published. I would love to !vote "keep", but can't see any arguments for doing so. -- 202.124.72.9 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now at least. It is September already, the journal is to launch this month. My suggestion, let's agree to keep it for and nom can see if anything changes by the end of the month. I think soon it'll meet WP:NJOURNAL The Terminator t c 15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your guess is as good as anybody's, but we should !vote based on policy, not guesses.. --Crusio (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that was the only reason we might have kept it, i guess the bottom line is it's not notable today and that's all that matters. The Terminator p t c 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

explanation. some authors, playwrights, and other creative professionals are so famous that any a=addition major work of theirs will be notable, ; this is best judged by observing that all of their previous works have been. This situation is analogous: Some journal publishers are of such a high quality that every one of their journals is notable. There aren't many of them, and they don't include the largest commercial publishers. I'd say they do include the key professional societies--every American Physical Society journal is notable, including any new one they should start. Similarly for the American Chemical Society, or Cold Spring Harbor Press. Society of Biologists is also in that rank: they publish 4 journals, each one a leader in its subject. A fifth one will be overwhelmingly likely to be just as important. NPG is partially--a Nature branded journal will be, one of their other medical journals, not necessarily. I'm uncertain of OUP and CUP. I know it isn't true from Springer or Elsevier, who each publish a lower stratum of non-notable journals. Some things of this sort can be reliably predicted. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not really convinced. Everybody can make mistakes and it is not unheard of that journals launched by even very reputable publishers fail. In the present case, I agree that this is unlikely. But I cannot say that I know this will not fail and will become a notable journal. At this point, there is hardly any content at all (as there is obviously not much to say about the journal yet). Not much is lost by deleting this stub and if in a few years it has indeed become notable, it will be easy to re-create the article. --Crusio (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mentions YET. may be notable in the future; WP:TOOSOON

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Bertrand[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can produce significant coverage of this musician in multiple, independent reliable sources. The article claims that "numerous publications refer to him and specialized writers such as Noël Balen consider him as a great talented musician" so if he's notable, the sources should be easy to find. I couldn't find them, but then again, I don't read French despite the one year French class I took in middle school. His collaborators are all red links, which is not a good sign. The photo accompanying the article is great, but unfortunately for photographers and their work, we don't keep a biography here just because of a good photo. I'll be happy to change my recommendation if we can establish that he's actually notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about him. I looked for reviews of his albums and also drew a blank. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited solo artistCurb Chain (talk) 10:50, 6 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. — Joseph Fox 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jéssica Widenby[edit]

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

Claim to fame is that she is a WAG (girlfriend) of Portuguese footballer Danilo Luís Hélio Pereira. She officially became a WAG this month with a post on Facebook. Absolutely no reliable sources about her. References given in article are to the footballer. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Claim to notability is shaky even if referenced and I can find no reliable sources to back up the claims, let alone prove that Widenby meets the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also checked Swedish-language news sources, and there she only appears (as a sports high school student and case in point) in connection with a 2010 article on preventing knee injuries among young footballers, i.e., not notable. Tomas e (talk) 12:12, 3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orestimba, California[edit]

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

no sources

no sig. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Nominator is: 23:01, 30 August 2011 Wirelesswonderer (talk | contribs) -- Carrite (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hits all over the place on Google Earth, including Orestimba High School. Pretty definitely a sufficiently identifiable populated suburb of Newman, California. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below) If someone can find evidence that this is a Census Designated Place or an official Populated Place, then it should be kept. I could not find evidence that it is either, but others may be better at this kind of searching than I am. If it is not so designated it should be deleted. The fact that Orestimba High School exists does not prove that Orestimba, California is an actual town (as opposed to a neighborhood of a nearby town, for example). Notice that the high school's mailing address is in Newman, and that the school district page about the high school says "Orestimba High School is located in Newman, California" - also that "Students come from the communities of Newman, Crows Landing, Diablo Grande, and the surrounding agricultural areas." Not a word about any community called Orestimba. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that nobody notified the article author about this discussion. I just did. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The community's name was shortened to Timba at some point, and sources can be found under that name (I added one to the article). The article needs to be moved to the current name, but the community can be verified. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The community is listed in the GNIS. Wikipedia also serves as a gazateer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the link to the GNIS. Article should be moved to Timba, California. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all populated places are notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, if verification is possible. It is here. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 3 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 redirect to 2010 Green Bay Packers season. Not entirely sure where this should be redirecting to, feel free to alter my choice. — Joseph Fox 12:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Battles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH, and WP:NSPORT. Just because he was on the practice squad when the Packers won the Super Bowl does not make him automatically notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 Green Bay Packers season, where it is already mentioned he was signed to practice squad. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS having not played a professional game. Unfortunately, offensive lineman dont get much coverage so doesnt meet WP:GNG with independent coverage on his college career either. —Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like he's had plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent media sources, such that he passes WP:GNG. I also take into account that, in American football, offensive linemen almost never get extensive publicity. Battles is an exception to that general rule which reinforces my view on his notability. Examples of the coverage include: (1) "Persistence paying off for former MSU Mankato offensive lineman," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Feb. 1, 2011; (2) "Battles will always have a chief claim to fame," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug, 15,2011; (3) "Bracelet New Charm in Athletes' Search for Edge," ABC News/Associated Press, Feb. 2, 2011; (4) "Vikings sign former Mav Battles: Former Minnesota State tackle to move to guard," Mankato Free Press, May 4, 2010; (5) Milwaukee's Battles glad to be here, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 2, 2011; (6) "Former Mav Battles for roster spot; ready for 1st game; Vikings guard has never attended an NFL game," Mankato Free Press, Aug. 13, 2010; (7) "Former Mankato player at Super Bowl with Packers," Aberdeen American News, Feb. 4, 2011; (8) "Pictures of the day," The Daily Telegraph (UK), Feb. 2, 2011, (9) "Battles at home in Viking camp: Spent his college career playing on the same practice fields," Mankato Free Press, July 31, 2010; (10) "A new experience for Battles," Mankato Free Press, Aug. 2, 2010, (11) "Former MSU player Battles for a spot on the Vikings, Tackle-turned-guard feeling more comfortable with each practice," Mankato Free Press, May 29, 2010, (12) "Former MSU football players looking for a shot at the pros: Rodgers, Earl and Battles at Vikings' tryout camp," Mankato Free Press, May 1, 2010, (13) "Former Maverick happy to say cheese: Minnesota State standout joins Packers for Super Bowl run," Mankato Free Press, Feb. 3, 2011. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that most of the coverage comes from his being on the practice squad during the Packers' playoff run or from a local newspaper. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage includes feature articles about Battles in major metropolitan dailies (Minneapolis Star Tribune ranks #17 on List of newspapers in the United States by circulation and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ranks #31) and from smaller newspapers in Mankato, MN, and Aberdeen, SD. Articles are specifically about Battles, including his college career and his service with the Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers, and his visit to the White House as part of the Super Bowl XLV championship team. It's anything but routine coverage, particularly for a practice squad offensive lineman. Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Cbl62 pointed out, this is hardly routine coverage for a practice squad offensive lineman. cmadler (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sorry I don't count the Mankato Free Press as "independent coverage", nor the town in which he was a former player with, even the Milwaukee article said that Battles career is coming to a "close" Secret ^account 05:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mankato Free Press is, in fact, "independent." It's one of the oldest daily newspapers in Minnesota (in print since 1857) serving six counties. (On what do you base your opinion that it's not independent?) In any event, Battle has also received feature article coverage in major metropolitan dailies, as noted above. As for his career coming to a "close," that may or may not prove true, but it's not relevant. All athletic careers come to a close, some sooner than others. In Battle's case, he's had a 5-year football career so far. Even if he never plays again, the extent and depth of non-trivial coverage he has received is far beyond routine coverage and is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The player's WP:IMPACT is from being a practice squad player in the Super Bowl, and WP:BLP1E seems relevant and suggests that the article be redirected. If we exclude the two Super Bowl related sources, we see multiple sources almost exclusively from Mankato Free Press—the ABC News/Associated Press source contains only a trivial mention of Battles. However, WP:GNG expects multiple sources, but says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Thus, there are insufficient sources to satisfy GNG, as there are neutrality concerns from writing his biography (outside of the Super Bowl) based predominantly on a single source. WP:MASK#Building a biography warns that "A living person's single event notability can be disguised by also including the subject's life history, such as graduating high school valedictorian or being interviewed by a local newspaper. The editor includes these events, usually accompanied with valid sources, attempting to establish a reputation for the person. Merging multiple unrelated non-notable accomplishments takes focus away from the true purpose of creating the coatrack article." WP:COATRACK suggests "in some cases where an event in a person's life is the only notable thing about them, it may make sense to only have an article on the event and not have an article on the person at all."—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of that is accurate. There are multiple independent sources. Aside from the Mankato paper (which has itself published multiple feature stories about Battles), he has also been the subject of feature articles in two of the largest metropolitan daily newspapers in the USA and a fourth newspaper as well. This also isn't a BLP, as some of the feature articles are about his four-year college career. He was, as discussed in one of the feature stories, a dominating player in his college career. Other articles are about his time with the Vikings. Some are about his 7 games with the Packers. This is not in any way, shape or form a coatrack for something else. A "coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." Coatracks are designed to "purposefully to promote a particular bias," and "run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy." None of that applies here. There is no "tangentially related" subject here. Nor is there a bias being promoted. Nor is there a deviation from neutral point of view. This is an article about a notable football player, not about the Israeli-Palestine conflict or abortion. Cbl62 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bagumba's reasoning. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:34, 31 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 13:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub (gaming)[edit]

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

This is a Neologism. A search for sources proves it is not a notable term. Fages (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does not appear that either the term or the concept is notable. VQuakr (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the one source which would seem to be primary in any case. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 5 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 merge to Bharati Matha. Courcelles 17:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Matha Burial Temple - IV[edit]

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

Four virtually identical pages, no references, final sentence (The Date of Documentation is 22.12.2006 by Dr. Sadasiba Pradhan & team.) suggests copied from unknown source Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bharati Matha for now. As far as I can tell, this, and other such articles are describing one of nine burial temples located within the Bharati Matha Temple complex which appears, based on the article description, to be some historically, culturally, and/or archaeologically significant site. Most of the text is the same, and should be discarded in a merge. There is a difference towards the end of the article which describes the dimensions and setting for each individual burial temple. I do have concerns about possible original research, but it would probably be best dealt with after merging, and discussed together at the single article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bharati Matha as above. Biscuittin (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge will be fine with me. It was plain that 4 very similar articles was not the way to go. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. Hazard-SJ ± 02:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sections to the Bharati Matha Burial Temple articles. I think merging them with Bharati Matha would make the latter article very long. Would it be better to merge the four Burial Temple articles into one article named Bharati Matha Burial Temples? Biscuittin (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The Bharati Matha is not that large. The amount of text to actually merge is very small. -- Whpq (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have consensus for a merger with Bharati Matha? If so, I am ready to do it. Biscuittin (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Patience. The discussion normally closes after 7 days. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 2 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 merge to Bharati Matha. Courcelles 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Matha Burial Temple – III[edit]

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

Four virtually identical pages, no references, final sentence (The Date of Documentation is 22.12.2006 by Dr. Sadasiba Pradhan & team.) suggests copied from unknown source Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bharati Matha. See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharati Matha Burial Temple - IV. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. Hazard-SJ ± 02:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - all the work of Lord Krsna (talk · contribs) (author of this one) and others listed at Wikipedia:Bhubaneswar temples project. All these authors need to learn the basics of Wikipedia articles first. Probably all the temples qualify for articles but at the temple-complex level rather than for each temple. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This particular article is far better than most of the ones I have identified. Most of them will have to be deleted as copyvios from ignca.nic.in, for example this one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:44, 4 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 merge to Bharati Matha. Courcelles 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Matha Burial Temple – V[edit]

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

Four virtually identical pages, no references, final sentence (The Date of Documentation is 22.12.2006 by Dr. Sadasiba Pradhan & team.) suggests copied from unknown source Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bharati Matha. See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharati Matha Burial Temple - IV. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. Hazard-SJ ± 02:56, 1 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 merge to Bharati Matha. Courcelles 17:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Matha Burial Temple – II[edit]

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

Four virtually identical pages, no references, final sentence (The Date of Documentation is 22.12.2006 by Dr. Sadasiba Pradhan & team.) suggests copied from unknown source Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bharati Matha. See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharati Matha Burial Temple - IV. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. Hazard-SJ ± 02:56, 1 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 keep. — Joseph Fox 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

南山[edit]

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

Disambiguation page for non-English word does not belong on English Wikipedia. Fages (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force has links to a number of previous discussions regarding Chinese Japanese Korean Vietnamese character disambiguation pages. If the proposer's rationale is valid, then the contents of Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles should also be deleted. For particulars on this page, see some discussion that took place on Talk:南山. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, does WP:ENGLISH even qualify for deletion? —ˈtɒdləˈtɒdɪ^{(Toddlertoddy)} 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change name~~ - 南山 is Nanshan (disambiguation). Somehow the wacky idea seems to be developing that if there is no universal agreement on how to transliterate Chinese words, the Chinese originals should be retained. This is very wrong. There is a difference in how Cyrillic is transliterated between the English, American, and Continental systems. Are we to seriously believe that if there is no universal agreement, the English Wikipedia is hereafter to render the disambiguation pages in Cyrillic? That's zany. We have a convention, which is to use the English system unless there is a commonly-accepted spelling that differs. If redirects are needed, they are used. In no case is the Cyrillic used, however, nor should it be. 南山 is Nanshan. There you go. Change this to Nanshan (disambiguation). The chances of an English WP user typing in 南山 and expecting a useful result approaches zero. This use of the Chinese is cutesy and utterly non-standard. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...and some policy for the fans of policy. From the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred." That seems clear, eh? Carrite (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. this is an accepted category by consensus, but seems to violate your quoted rule. I just dont understand how we can justify articles like this. I hope im not being insular, but this is the english wikipedia, after all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool at toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/, the page has been viewed 1,454 times in the six-month period of 2011-02-01 – 2011-07-31. That is, on the average, eight times a day. There are days with much more traffic; for example, 2011-08-15 saw 30 page views, according to Henrik's tool at stats.grok.se/en/201003/Main_Page. --Lambiam 06:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 南山 and Nanshan (disambiguation) are not equivalent. Some people expect Nanzan and other expect Namsan. To serve these expectations, and to resolve where 南山 should redirect to, there should be a disambiguation page linking to them. And Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is for article titles, but disambiguation pages, like redirects, are not articles. See Wikipedia:What is an article?. --08:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) --Kusunose 08:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's very simple. The most common transliteration, Nanshan, I take it, is the main disambiguation page. Namsan is then set up as a redirect page to this. If there is a third common transliteration of 南山, that should be set up as yet another redirect to Nanshan. Honestly, this game could be played for every single Cyrillic word using the letters Й, Ю, Я, Ж, Ч, or starting with Е. There are different transliteration systems for each of these letters between the British, American Library of Congress, and Continental European conventions. Russian speakers may have different "expectations." The guidelines are very clear on this matter and there is no exception made for dab pages vs. articles. This is the English wikipedia and all non-Roman alphabets and characters are to be transliterated into the Roman alphabet according to a standard system of transliteration. Traffic stats don't matter, this is a hard and established guideline. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there is no "standard system of transliteration" for Chinese characters. We cannot prescribe that users transliterate Chinese characters according to a standard that does not exist. --Lambiam 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just pick a system for the main disambiguation and create redirects for every other likely permutation. This seems straightforward... Carrite (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Striking rename vote above, this is actually an unsourced original essay on the various meanings of "南山," a set of dictionary definitions, if you will, disguised as a dab page. There should be established in this article's place the following: (1) Namsan (disambiguation) for the various Korean uses of the word, based on the commonly accepted Korean transliteration; (2) Nanshan (disambiguation) (which already exists), based on the common Chinese tranliteration, for sundry Chinese uses of the word; (3) Nanzan (disambiguation) for the Japanese uses of "Nanzan" and "Nanshan" on Wikipedia. There are no sources showing for this pseudo-dab page, actually an article. Fails General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your astute observation equally applies to Aberdeen (disambiguation). I now see clearly that this is an unsourced original essay on the various meanings of "Aberdeen", cleverly disguised as a dab page. Thank you for opening my eyes to this unencyclopedic abuse of Wikipedia, which is not a platform for such original research. --Lambiam 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, that means every single dab page that contains Chinese characters should include sources. And what is a notability guideline for a dab page? Also, to the people who are using the romanization argument: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. It has already been stated above. If you would like to argue against that whole task force's job, please, do it over there and not here. —ˈtɒdləˈtɒdɪ^{(Toddlertoddy)} 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be dab pages for words in Chinese characters on the English wikipedia, according to my reading of the guideline above, which seems clear. The argument you are making is WP:OTHERSTUFF. They should all be transliterated or gone. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why should the WP:English wikipedia provide article/dab pages for non-English languages? If someone is going to use the WP Search function to find these charactors, they will be found within a Article with an english title. Does WP allow ALL languages to be to be used as titles? ... or is there a walled garden around Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force's pages ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English-language Wikipedia certainly allows French, German, Latin, etc. in the titles of disambiguation pages (e.g. raison d'être, Kreis, sonus) and even articles! (e.g. casus belli). We also have non-Latin characters in page titles; e.g. Мир and א. --Lambiam 08:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a red herring. This Dab page that we are talking about is not reachable from a Roman alphabet keyboard. Use a non-Roman character Redir to get to it if you want to, but Dabs & Articles should be in Roman characters on the English WP. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing my reply as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a red herring. You asked a direct question ("Does WP allow ALL languages to be to be used as titles?"); I simply attempted to answer it. Or was this meant to be a rhetorical question? By the way, Raison d'être is likewise unreachable from my standard 26-letter keyboard; fortunately, there are all kinds of tools to go beyond its limitations. And actually, when I'm looking up something on Wikipedia that I encountered while reading and want to know more about, I usually don't retype it but simply copy-paste it, so I don't need the keyboard at all.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raison d'être as Raison d'etre is very reachable, that is why it is a red herring. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since non-Roman re-directs that both: 1) translate to the target in question. 2) are native to the target subject are almost never deleted, it is logical to expect that some users will be using these as search terms, and when there is ambiguity, a DAB page needs to be in place. Hence WP:FORRED extends to DAB pages as well. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xiaoyu. The argument that the page should redirect to Nanshan (disambiguation) doesn't make sense: what if the characters in context refer to (and should be transliterated as) Minamiyama? Chinese characters being what they are, it is quite impossible to design a consistent "system of transliteration", as has been advocated by some, also not when confined to one standard language such as Japanese. (And even if it were, how could we set up a training program for the users of Wikipedia to master and use it? It takes Japanese kids some six years of learning to become fluent readers.) --Lambiam 08:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It doesn't hurt to have a non-English redirect or disambiguation page; it's not an article in itself, so it should be fine. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question here is not merely of different transcription standards but of actually differing languages. It is simply not possible to "pick one language" and arbitrarily call that the "standard transcription". Furthermore, the argument that "The chances of an English WP user typing in 南山 and expecting a useful result approaches zero" is contradicted by actual evidence. People put non-Roman characters into the English Wikipedia search box all the time. For example, about a thousand readers trying to get to the Roh Moo-hyun article in the days after he committed suicide used the hangul redirect [1]. cab (call) 03:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a WP:BIGNUMBER when compared to its english equivilent. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to WP:BIGNUMBER is misleading and irrelevant. This is a disambiguation page, not an article. We're not discussing notability. We're discussing serving readers of the encyclopedia to locate information. I'm sure we can quibble all day about whether 1 out of 200 readers "approaches zero", but let me quote WP:R#KEEP, a reasoning which applies also to disambiguation page: "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." cab (call) 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was right on the money. You provided a number infering it was a lot. I showed that it really wasn't. WP:R does not apply because this is not a Redirect, no matter how much !Keeps want it to be. (I have no problem with a Redir being titled in a non-Englich language, I even stated so earlier.) This is why WP:D exists and says "English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages. You have identified the problem that multiple different (non-English) languages use these Charactors for very different meanings and that transcribing it into English as any 1 'Term' is not possible. So we should not force an unacceptable page where it will never work properly nor will it conform to accepted standards! Let the Search function find ALL references to these characters on the 'pedia as it is intended to do. There is nothing that says "We must have redirs and dabs everywhere". When it is easy and helpful to do so, by all means, however (IMO) it is not possible in this case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAmDynamite[edit]

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

Band that has not yet released an album, only minor press coverage, fails notability standards of WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is weaker than it appears at first glance. The article about the band published in the "Austin Music Examiner" would seem to be <<link is blacklisted search on Google for the article title to find it>> on Examiner.com which is not a reliable source. The article from emYou! is linked to a blog post. Assuming it is a repost from the actual magazine, that represents coverage in a very minor local free magazine. The Pitt News is a student newspaper from the University of Pittsburgh. The popbitez link doesn't work nor can I find any post about them on the site. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches are not turning up any significant coverage for this duo in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. All I can find are concert listings/announcements, social networking sites, a press release, non-notable blogs, and so forth. Gongshow ^Talk 04:55, 3 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Williamson[edit]

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

This radio presenter who is "best known for his Youtube videos" is not notable. Poorly sourced. Fages (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete lacks reliable independent sources.possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Making YouTube videos does not make someone notable. No attempt to establish notability, so delete. ItsZippy (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent changes have helped. This is the reason why an online encyclopedia exists. To look up information about something or someone I come across in my daily life. I hear this guy on the radio and I want to know about him. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG, WP:RS --Trevj (talk) 09:40, 8 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 speedy delete. Also G12 - www.ignca.nic.in/asi_reports/orkhurda243.pdf Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bata Mahadeva. (Muktesvara Siva)[edit]

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

Non notable temple with no sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 19:57, 30 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 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exaella[edit]

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

Article, by its producer, about an unreleased "Original Video Animation (OVA) anime." The author contested a PROD whose reason was "Search for reliable third-party sources comes up with nothing. In fact, I cannot even find it listed on any anime databases (reliable or unreliable), so its claim that it is an anime is highly suspect." Author's response on talk page is "its not in any anime databases because it is getting release at the end of ths year!" Not surprisingly, there is not the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has only three contributions ever, two on his talk page, and the creation of this article. He never protested the prod anywhere. You removed the prod, and then send it to this AFD. Why not just let the prod delete it? Dream Focus 18:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted by PROD, but an IP, evidently the author, requested undeletion on my talk page, and commented on the article talk page; so I restored it and brought it here. I have explained things on the author's talk page, and apologised that Wikipedia is not good at explaining in advance what it is not for. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original deletion proposal. There are no reliable sources that verify this animated film beyond its own website. The article's creator is Andrewoudot (talk · contribs) while the article states that the producer is Andrew Oudot. Either this is an elaborate hoax or its an advertisement. Either way it doesn't meet verifiability policy or the notability guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it hasn't been released and hasn't received any independent coverage it's not notable. Several Times (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, would qualify as speedy a7 if, as likely, it is only going to be available by web. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this in not an elaborate hoax, feel free to delete the Exaella wiki page, but once the dvd gets released this year i assume that the page can be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.161.215 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being released is unlikely to be enough - in order to establish notability an article would need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which would probably not be available until independent reviews and comment were available. See advice on your talk page at User talk:Andrewoudot. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable because no citations so this is a promotional article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Chain (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Davies (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Well written article, however it appears to be largely autobiographical and I would question the subject's notability. References are largely from social networking sites with some minor local news sources. Wexcan Talk 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old-style schoolkid vanity article of the type we (thankfully) don't see many of anymore. How this managed to survive since January is a mystery for the ages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this falls under "schoolkid vanity", as I and a group of some others are simply documenting the work of a friend we admire, but if Wikipedia has to be so strict then it could at least pay attention to the vandalism and offensive language left on pages such as Priestley college that I've taken the liberty of correcting or removing. -- Analiencure
If you corrected the vandalism, that means that Wikipedia did pay attention to it. 98.206.166.236 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "simply documenting the work of a friend we admire", while laudable, Please see WP:NAU. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some coverage in the local paper, but that's insufficient to establish notability. But if he does keep up with teh work that he's doing, that may change in the future. No prejudice to recreation of the article when that day arrives. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot more needed than a few mentions in a very local paper before we can even consider notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 31 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. by Fastily (talk) per WP:CSD#A10. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 30, 2011 in the United States[edit]

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

I think Portal:Current events and August 30 would be enough for the date. No need to create a whole article just for the date. Articles has no references and no external links. -- Luke (Talk) 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Er, several topics. Several Times (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 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 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuotePort[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no justification. Quotations website that currently contains no third-party sources, only links to its own website. The article creator, QuotePort, is likely to have a conflict of interest and I have dropped a note explaining so on their userpage. The website does not appear to meet the notability criteria for web content. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find anything third-party that was notable on Google (Google News) and Yahoo! search.SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unspectacular website, no characteristics-of-note

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of primary schools in Belfast. Courcelles 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaview Primary School[edit]

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

No notability or assertion of notability. No references. Primary schools in the UK are rarely considered sufficiently notable to have their own article and this is both small and offers no special claim to fame other than it exists. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~. This article is actually out of date due to this event, but apart from that coverage, there's nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing we'd lose from Wikipedia by merging into the locality. (In fact, since a proposed merge tag had been up for the last three years with no objections, I'd have just gone ahead and merged it.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not knowing the area well enough I was uncertain where it should merge. The merge notice talks off the "...appropriate locality...". If one could be specified I would happily do the merge. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a merge target is not easy with this one, because its one of many primary schools in Belfast, see List of primary schools in Belfast (which the redlinks should be removed from unless we want to encourage primary school article creation, which we generally do not).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I think I'd go for a Redirect to List of primary schools in Belfast, simply because there's not really anything we can merge that's verifable (other than which area of Belfast it's in and the year it was founded). If there was mergeable material we might have a problem, but that's just hypothetical. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability stated. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary schools not considered to be notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge We normally merge these to the community unless there's a suitable specific list. Since there's a list, mentioned above, that's what should be done. The delete comments above completely ignore our r usual practice & give no reason why it should not be followed. The list needs major improvements; every one of its entries should be expanded by including at least a link to its web site, & the location within (or around) Belfast. They can then be expanded into fuller subarticles. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DGG and precedent, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death-Fuse[edit]

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

unsigned band, Fails WP:Music , no reliable sources could be found to assert notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not an indication of notability, because they are not signed to a label. Also, I'm not sure about what type of release the album listed is: whether it is a full-length album, a demo, or even an EP. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 31 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 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of SB Nation websites[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT; Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY; inappropriate WP:PROMO list consisting only of external links per WP:EL. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this was nominated for deletion, the creator removed the enormous list of external links. This has left a "list" of three articles, which are more than adequately linked at SB Nation, Template:SB Nation, and related articles by the creator. This is the latest addition to a WP:Walled garden of articles on the SB Nation brand, created first by one account and then another, both of which have edited nothing but SB Nation promo, renamed articles repeatedly (e.g moving The Verge to The Verge (shopping mall) thereby breaking direct and transcluded links), etc, suggesting a WP:Conflict of interest by the creator(s). Gurt Posh (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is pretty clearly an attempt at having a place on Wikipedia to dump a potentially enormous number of promotional external links. No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 24 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually spent a solid year chipping in (unpaid) at a couple SB Nation websites. Sports Blog Nation is the largest network of professional and collegiate sports blogs, the only other network on the landscape to rival them is that of ESPN. This is not a small company, they're pretty huge — I believe that an ex-AOL executive is running the show there. SB Nation is 100% notable in and of itself, that should not be doubted by anyone for even one second. Now, if you follow me here, assuming this is a highly notable organization, which it is, a list of the 300 or whatever constituent blogs SHOULD be also notable, assuming that at least some of these are notable themselves. There probably are several: Athletics Nation is the blog of the guy that started the company and is big, I know there are sources out there for Blazers Edge, which is their NBA bell cow, Celtics Blog is enormous as sports blogs go. There are doubtlessly others. So, to me: probably a worthy list subject. Now, of course, the big question here: was this article a Conflict-of-Interest related, promotionally driven external links farm, tossable on NOT DIRECTORY grounds? It sounds like it was. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Having reviewed the new page by the new editor that was originally tagged for deletion, this did indeed start as a links farm for SBN's regional blogs. However, despite that false start (WP is NOT A LINKS DIRECTORY), this remains a legitimate subject for a list. One would hope that a few more linkable articles on SBN blogs emerge first so that there is some sort of functionality provided. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , with prejudice. To the extent that some of the contents is encyclopedic material, it can best go in the main article. The best place for them to list their sites is their own web page. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 5 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. Courcelles 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nujira[edit]

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

This page has only one source, reads a lot like an essay, and is not in Wikipedia's formal tone. Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy at Peterchesham if they want it. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY, but ability to meet that looks possible. 90% of material is self-promotional/self interest, but it is not too brazen in that respect. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the contribs I think you would have better luck over at Johnfos (talk · contribs). ~~Peterchesham (talk · contribs) seems to have vanished.~~ My bad, Peterchesham (talk · contribs) is still editing. If they want it, they will most likely petition the closing admin. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Updated 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising: Nujira enables efficient, wide-band Power Amplifier modules for the next generation of cellular, broadcast and defence communication systems using its Envelope Tracking based technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article. Hopefully it is now within the Wikipedia guidelines. Peterchesham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchesham (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 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) 16:49, 23 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some references in a GNews search, of which by far the most substantial is EE Times , but they are entirely PR-based, and I don't consider that significant independent coverage. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 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. Courcelles 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brooks (radio presenter)[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find his name mentioned in passing regarding the Popstars issue, and in a couple of press releases about shows that he's worked in, which just don't amount to the significant coverage expected by the GNG — frankie (talk) 19:34, 18 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, v/r - T P 18:19, 23 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:41, 30 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving lead generation[edit]

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

Not very notable aspect of marketing. Article is just thinly-veiled spam for two companies. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is about online targeted marketing for furniture moving businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 24 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, disguised spam. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 30 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Cannon[edit]

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

Non-notable person: references are, for the most part, affiliated, trivial, non-reliable, or more than one of the above. Possible COI on the part of the major editor or editors involved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant ocverage about him in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article isn't about him. It's links to works which he is author or co-author, or the article merely mentions him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 25 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find nothing about him in a search. The article is heavily sourced, but most of the sources are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Maker[edit]

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

There is no coverage to prove this band is notable. The article is also written in poor English and there are POV problems with it. I would prefer it to be speedy deleted, but considering that the creator keeps on recreating it, a discussion will be better. JDDJS (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, not notable. Has been speedy deleted before with no changes. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 23:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BAND; unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 06:32, 3 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 Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Urdang[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP in existence since 2009. Creator BoswellScribbler (talk · contribs) hasn't done much outside of Leslie Urdang. Not sure on the notability of her production credits. Raymie (t • c) 04:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 22 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, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AfD was not relisted with the right date. It only appeared under August 22, not August 29. Please add an extra day to the second part of this AfD. Raymie (t • c) 14:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and send to cleanup.~~ A pity that the article has not received the wikilove it deserves, as the subject is indeed covered in independent sources. For example, a quck look finds Boston Globe speaking toward the filmmaker when writing "Veteran Los Angeles film producer Leslie Urdang stands among the most fortunate independent filmmakers." and The New York Times writing "Leslie Urdang and her colleagues have been tapping the talent of New York's theater community..." and also "Leslie Urdang was going to be a senator, until she got a job with one." And there are many more such that speak about the person directly and in some detail.[2][3] That a filmmaker and her work are written about in multiple sources shows notability per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Sure the article needs work, but lack of work is not a decent reason to delete what can be addressed through normal editing, specially as recognition of notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Much preliminary cleanup and sourcing now accomplished.[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom per work done on above. Most of the reason I AfD'd it instead of a tag is because it was an unsourced BLP. The notability is addressed now as well. Raymie (t • c) 14:20, 31 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 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bukan Jatt[edit]

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

No sources provided, only MySpace, notability in question. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable Indian media. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:13, 31 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 Redirected to Avaikkottai. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avikkottai[edit]

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

No sources. Article does not show why subject is notable RDN1F (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search shows that Avikkottai is a village. Villages are usually kept at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avaikkottai, a sourced article about the same village (with the official transliteration as the title). —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 30 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 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pa na pa[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources (not even the one in the Article works for me). Info could be better placed on Humour or any of its related sub-Articles. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:39, 31 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. A strong consensus developed to the effect that notability, as Wikipedia defines the term, was not shown. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential CBT Skills Series[edit]

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

Non notable instructional DVD series, without reliable independent sources about the series. 26 Google hits confirm that it exists, but it fails WP:N by a wide margin.

Also suffering from a lack of notability (and therefor proposed for deletion) is the company that produced these DVDs, The Skills Development Service Ltd. 81 distinct Google hits (104 if you remove Ltd from the search, [5] None of the four Google New Archive hits are sufficient[6], and the only results in Google Books or Scholar seem to be promotional. Note that searching without the "The" at the start returns many unrelated things... Fram (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It is the only DVD training set on the most prominent currently psychotherapy approach Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. This series is the one of the kind both in the UK and in the world. The number of hits on the series website and the volume of search for CBT training materials demonstrates high relevance of the series and importance of it.

As for the Skills Development Service Ltd it should not be deleted as it is a well-established organisation of lond-standing (established for more than 20 years) with a client-base of more that 100,000 delegates. It is known nation-wide and is one of the leaders in the field of psychological skills training. It is a notable company with established links to the British Psychological society and many other professional bodies.

Both articles are not fully edited yet - they are stubs to give the essential information, but further editing will be taking place shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: by Graeme Bartlett speedy delete declined as per talk page --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drinkanddrugsnews.com/UserPages.aspx?name=a956690b02dd4dc9b6bf619b50440100 --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bps.org.uk/events/effective-therapeutic-problem-solving-techniques-clients-work-skills-development-service-ltd --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://bps-learning-centre.bps.org.uk/bps-learning-centre/find-cpd/approved-external-cpd-opportunities/approved-cpd.cfm --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gmccsn.nhs.uk/uploaded/documents/(020916)0911Flyer.pdf --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A declined speedy deletion has no impact on an AfD discussion, the rules for speedy are a lot more strict than those for deletion through AfD. Of the four sources you give here, the first is a press release or similar commercial posting ("We provide training throughout the UK"), the second and third show that the BPS has approved their courses (which is good, but not an indication of notability), and the fourth indicates that they have also organised a three-day course with someone else, which is of course just what they do. Has the company or the courses received significant attention from independent, reliable sources, e.g. newspaper articles about the company (or the DVDs)? Fram (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DVDs produced by the company have been reviewed in the UK top professional journals - however I currently only have hard copies, not links to these reviews. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also - company director has been interviewed in the national press and radio. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDS Ltd is the company providing courses approved by BPS - and its CBT INtroductory course is THE ONLY course of this kind approved by BPS. The Essential CBT Skills Series is THE ONLY training set of this kind in the world. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is unique or not is not important for this discussion? Outside recognition in the form of articles, reviews, ... is what counts. The only thing on the SDS website that looks remotely like this is an interview one of the six trainers of the compay had with Lighter Life, but in the interview or in her bio accompanying it, the company isn't even mentioned! Fram (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/1976/ - one review i've found at the moment online - you cannot see the full copy as you need to purchase the journal for it - but if you look in the content - it is one of the SDS Ltd training DVDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company director Paul Grantham has been interviewed in "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Argos" both major newspapers although we can not currently find the sources needed to show this. He has also appeared on "BBC Radio 4" again being interviewed.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just give me a list of the reasons that this subject is Up for deletion. I think any british psychologist would argue that a BPS approved course certainly shows notability.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of this list of reasons. Specifically, the article needs independent, reliable sources. If psychologists - specifically those independent of those involved in the production of this training material - find it notable, this article must provide evidence of that. Otherwise, it's simply advertising. Several Times (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a psychologist and the director of this training material and of SDS LTD. Paul Grantham our lead therapist finds it notbale and so do--Jein Gallaher (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I[reply]

That is helpful to know, as it could certainly be considered a conflict of interest. Several Times (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the deletion of both these articles and request that their deletion is postponed until a later date.--Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph article featuring both Paul Grantham and The Skills Development Service http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/843394/Volunteering-can-help-live-longer/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH --Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Telegraph article, that is a Third Sector article, which while quoting Grantham mentions that he is a director of SDS. No other info about SDS is given, so this is not significant coverage of SDS at all, but a passing mention. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3634052.print/ --Jein Gallaher (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has one half line about SDS. We are not asking whether Paul Grantham is notable or not, he is not the subject of these articles: we are asking for evidence that SDS, and the DVD set, are both notable. You haven't provided any articles or other independent coverage of these until now. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like your tone. It feels like bullyng. I wonder whether you have some administrator code of conduct here - are you trained or briefed how to treat the new authors wthout offending them? Yes, I don't have much experience - this is my first article I've submitted to here. My personal belief was that providing evidence of delivering courses approved by BPS LC which are unique for UK is enough for considering this company prominent. Same goes for the DVD training set which is one of a kind. You have a different opinion - please express it in a polite way wthout making me feel like a criminal who attempts to do something wrong. Totally unacceptable way of holding a discussion. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I actually wrote. There is no bullying involved. I state facts. I have not used your lack of knowledge of how we e.g. lay-out discussion pages, since that would be a) irrelevant and b) impolite towards a new editor. I have discussed the lack of acceptable sources about the company and the DVDs, the fact that an article you claim is from the Telegraph appears to be from a totally different source, Third Sector, and the fact that when you voluntarily, without any request to do so, stated your position within the company, you gave two mutually contradictory versions. No one has asked why you want to have articles for these, no one has threatened you in any way, no one has tried to stop you from discussing things or from posting your links. But it is a discussion: if you can't stand people contadicting you, people scrutinizing your statements, and people simply disagreeing with you, then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. You are free to stay around and edit as much as you like, but don't complain about bullying or personal attacks without a very good reason to do so please. Fram (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest conflict of interest as I am not a Director of The Skills Development Service Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jein Gallaher (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you state "I am a psychologist and the director of this training material and of SDS LTD." Now you state "I am not a Director of The Skills Development Service Ltd." While it is not really relevant whether you are or aren't a director of SDS, it does give a much better impression if you stick to one story. Fram (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fram let us not go down the route of personal attack. Yes, I was unclear in my message - just because I got quite pressurised in this what seemed a heated discussion. I am one of the directors of this training materials and I meant to say - "I worked with SDS Ltd" in producing it. Overall I would very much welcome more civilized way of conductng this type of discussion. I am a professional person, who has an opinion in the matter, and I am entytled to my opinion just as much as you to yours. I strongly feel the new contributors should be treated with more respect this discussion feels more like an interogation of a criminal than a civilized cinversation between professionals. I hope it can be brought back to polite ways rather than presonal attacks demonstrated in your last message. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one was asking for your credentials, professional status, or affiliation with the company. You were not "pressurized" in any way to divulge any information about you personally. But when you did of your own free will, you gave two contradictory versions. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. Nothing else I said was about you, but about the articles and about the sources provided. I would prefer if we could stick to that. Fram (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you start using expressions like "if you stick to one story" it is a personal attack and cannot be viewed in any other way. Are there any other administrators that I can deal with? I find your approach unprofessional and unhelpful. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators. Fram (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- As mentioned above, the references for both articles are entirely unacceptable, the company article furthermore contains quite some puffery. The only claim of notability (that the company is a leading training organisation) is not referenced at all. Both article subjects seem to be entirely run-of-the-mill, with no documented general or historic significance whatsoever. The DVD set article is certainly speediable as it makes no assertion of notability. --Pgallert (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - I would appreciate if the administrators had watched their language! I don't know how it is in your country but here in the UK courses approved by the British Psychological Society make the training company "one of the leading" ones in the field. So - please do not use the word "puffery" unless you can present me with the list of companies who are more notable in this field. Again - you are entitled to your opinion, but it has to be equally evidence-based. And you are certainly are not entitled to insulting the company you are talking about just because you are not familiar with the field. --Jein Gallaher (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use the word puffery in its Wikipedia meaning: vague, unsubstantiated positive claims, see WP:PUFF. Leading, long standing, high-quality, leading, specialist are all phrases which perfectly fit this definition. To me that's not an insult to anyone, but if you feel insulted on behalf of your article then I offer my apologies. If you feel it is evident that courses approved by the British Psychological Society make the training company "one of the leading" ones in the field then the phrase Many of the SDS Ltd courses are approved by The British Psychological Society Learning Centre, as it currently appears in The Skills Development Service Ltd, is absolutely sufficient and does not need to be spiced with interpretations of this statement. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No inidication that either has received the necessary coverage to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Whilst I think it might be possible to save the corporate article if Jein.Gallaher can come up with some substantiation with appropriate proof and citation for their associations "It is known nation-wide and is one of the leaders in the field of psychological skills training. It is a notable company with established links to the British Psychological society and many other professional bodies", it seems unlikely that such proof could be forthcoming inkeeping with WP:CITE, and in either case, the DVD set is not notable enough for its own article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you forgot a "not" in your last line (is "not" notable enough)? 08:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  - Indeed - now corrected. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added three references: two reviews of SDS Ltd DVDs in national journals - Therapy Today and Network Health Dietitians. And interview with one of the SDS trainers in LighterLife Magazine. --August Favourite (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing those sources in the article. Could you link to the sources here? Hobit (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They can be seen in the references for the article on The Skills Development Service Ltd - one is subscription only but the others are visible. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It's argued above that "I think any british psychologist would argue that a BPS approved course certainly shows notability". I am a British psychologist and I certainly don't agree that BPS approval is sufficient to establish notability. The BPS approves dozens (hundreds?) of courses a year, the vast majority of which - while valuable - will remain entirely non-notable in a Wikipedia sense. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending sources listed above Hobit (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:39, 7 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 speedily deleted per G7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Oriti[edit]

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

No notability established. Information is from a self published source. Further, the article creator is Adamoriti (talk · contribs). Thus, possible CoI. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy rather than delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy rather than delete per Avenue X at Cicero. The user also referred to an as-yet-uncreated article Adam Oriti (artist) in this edit, possibly by mistake. — Jeff G. ツ 13:50, 30 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 redirected to Francine Shapiro by nominator. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 11:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EMDR Institute[edit]

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

There is almost no information here. Any relevant details already appear on Francine Shapiro and EMDR. I think the 2 year old merge suggestion is a good one. MTHarden (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - What is there to merge? Note, if the nom felt merging was called for, then AFD isn't the place for a merge discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think I understand. Are you suggesting that the page should just become a redirect to EMDR? That makes sense. Maybe I should've just done that instead of AfD? I didn't even think of that as a process, I just saw the crumby state of the article and thought it should go. Your suggestion seems great! Should I just do that and close this? Can I close this? --MTHarden (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd pick Francine Shapiro as the redirect target, but a case could be made for either. You can withdraw your nomination. Somebody will then come along and close the discussion.-- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did. So. Withdrawn. --MTHarden (talk) 14:39, 1 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Theatre Controls[edit]

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

contested prod. No assertion of notability of this organization, reads like an advertising brochure. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. I attempted to find independent mentions of the company but could find none (to be fair, the company name is irritatingly difficult to search for, etc.) Several Times (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, willing to change to a Weak Keep on the basis of newly available sources. The article still needs cleanup. Several Times (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree the article does need a cleanup. The wording skirts along the lines of an advert/press release. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They appear to be a notable company designing lighting and control systems for theatres and stage performances. This book indicates that their products are in wide use; so wide that the book uses the ETC products in its descriptions due to its popularity (see p. 98). Their products are noted in this book about concert lighting. And apparently, people get excited about one model of their spotlights enough that it gets covered in a book about lighting for digital video and TV. Also covered in writing about scene design. The article appears to lean bit towards the spammish side, and I suspect company reps have been editting the article. I removed a timeline section from the article that was lifted directly from the company web site. However the coverage in these books (there are more) establish the company as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Whpq. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This industry is small and the authors of the books that Whpq found surely are familiar with the company ETC. In this trade magazine ETC is listed as a member of the trade group USITT and one of the authors of the mentioned books, Mr. Moody, sits on its board.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:57, 7 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. Courcelles 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro women's national football team[edit]

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

Suggest move to AfC until it has some more content! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not found evidence that Montenegro has a women's national football team, even though I found a UEFA article [7] that the federation is in the process of establishing one. That was from June 2011. I find no evidence for the names of the coaches in the infobox. At the moment I will have to call for deletion based on unverifiability, but I'll be happy to change that if evidence of the team's existence can be provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the team will be notable when it actually exists, but there is no evidence that is currently does. The intention is certainly there, but no execution. Giant Snowman 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet in existence. Definitely never played a match. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable at present. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion A3. Aside from its infobox, the article contains no content other than a rephrasing of the title. – Pee Jay 10:13, 6 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Foods[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Miracle Pen (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 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 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School[edit]

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

Multiple reasons: needs a total re-write if it's notable enough to stay; unlikely to find more than one source for information - could possibly be moved to AfC? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - invariably if enough research is carried out for high schools sources can be found to meet WP:GNG. Cleanup is a matter of tagging for improvement not deletion. To avoid systemic bias we should await the finding of local or Chinese language sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage; "unlikely to find more than one source for information." I don't think it's true at all that high schools will always have enough sources to be kept. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been completely rewritten since nomination, and multiple references have been added, which is no small feat for a school located in China, I have to agree with TerriersFan that it appears we could find more sources if we give it some additional time. While a small specialty school may not be verifiable or have any coverage, that's not the case here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Keep it now!: that's a massive improvement now; if I'd encountered it looking like this at first glance, I wouldn't have suggested deletion :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:27, 2 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. H. Rizvi[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability under either WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. Google scholar reveals a number of publications by someone named "SAH Rizvi", but they mostly seem to be a different person or persons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at least some of the SAH Rizvi entries in Google scholar are him, for example: this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, India Google scholar normally shows initials without the periods. I couldn't find enough information to show him notable, although perhaps someone more up on mathematics in India could. Francis Bond (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment you can get what seems like a reasonable scholar search on this guy by limiting the subject to mathematics: like this. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to also have published under full name of Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi. has 11 articles listed on mathscinet. this database admittedly isn't ideal for historians of mathematics, but is a useful check on google scholar, which has its quirks. on scholar he has nothing with over 8 citations, and the ever popular h-index of 2. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The subject of some of his studies, Ghulam Hussain Jaunpuri, might be worthy of a Wikipedia article (we don't seem to have one already) but Rizvi doesn't even seem to be the leading scholar on that specialized topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable writer-professor b/c no outstanding contributions outside his scope-of-workCurb Chain (talk) 11:09, 6 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. and salt Courcelles 17:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation with cosmic strings[edit]

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

Author has removed prod so it comes to AfD. Let's be gentle and just say original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, and in view of the claims being of an extraordinary nature, references to reliable sources do seem to be somewhat lacking. In fact, I see the article is "signed" by "layton rushing" so could it be quickly dispensed with as a hoax? Thincat (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Several Times (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced original essay, title is not a plausible redirect to anything. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been speedy deleted before. The article's recreator has been blocked by nominator for sock puppetry. --Lambiam 07:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. -- 202.124.75.178 (talk) 11:04, 31 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Khan, Bargujar[edit]

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

The article needs to be deleted as author has already created another page Lalkhani for similar content. There was no need to create another page. Further, it is just a copy paste from one single source, lead missing. Not fit for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia.Jethwarp (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Further the person has No notability established per WP:PEOPLE or WP:ANYBIO.Jethwarp (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I request you to kindly not !vote Delete in case you've nominated the AfD for deletion? Not that you're breaking any major policy or guideline, it's just that a closing administrator may get confused. This is just a request. Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 21:38, 29 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)."--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:07, 7 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 redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota streams[edit]

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

There is already a List of rivers of Minnesota, having a second list is a complete waste of effort and is just a list of non-notable streams and creeks. The list ~~was presumably copied~~ is too close to USGS, you can generate a similar list with the appropriate query Link MadCow257 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Topic is redundant with List of rivers of Minnesota, which should be the redirect topic. (Wikipedia shouldn't have two articles about the same topic.) Some content may deserve to be merged there or to articles about individual rivers and lakes to (or from, in the case of some lakes) which the smaller streams flow. Note that the USGS list output may be more authoritative than what's previously been used to assemble the existing list article and other articles about individual rivers. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 17 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, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not surprising that Minnesota has lots of streams, considering that its name comes from the Dakota word for water and is also famous for its 10,000 lakes. However most of them are never going to have an article here and a list of them seems more like material for an atlas than an encyclopedia. BigJim707 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge: don't need every stream, but relevant to the article about rivers. Dzlife (talk) 13:43, 26 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What will be merged? A sentence that says: "Each river is feed by many streams."? I don't see a place for the names of minor streams within a general interest encyclopedia at all. That sounds more like Google Earth. BigJim707 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Articles about rivers -- and lists of rivers -- often include lists of tributaries, generally in the order in which they enter the main stream. This list of streams includes an unhelpful alphabetized list (including some names that appear several times), but it also lists some streams by the river system to which they belong. To the extent that this second list includes information not in List of rivers of Minnesota and/or the articles about the individual Minnesota rivers (my limited checking indicates that it does include some such information), there is some content that would enhance those other articles. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of names of non-notable streams. WP is not a directory. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:37, 30 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. No consensus to delete was reached in this discussion, nor is there reason in policy to impose one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VIP Parts, Tires and Service[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP. The claims of notability in the article are insufficient grounds to justify a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article now contains citation that the company is the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England. This is especially important in this day of megastores like Pep Boys and NAPA. Thank you for considering. Hmvont (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Hmvont[reply]
- I don't consider "the largest independently owned automotive parts company in New England" to be a sufficiently notable characteristic for inclusion in WP. However, in the absence of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies we have to rely on WP case law (aka deletion discussions!). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excluding the non-independent sources such as the company's own website, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But are they significant? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company has been around for more than 50 years and has more than 50 locations throughout the northeast U.S. Anyone who lives in New England (especially Maine) has either bought tires or auto parts from this company, or knows someone else who has bought from them. Seems like a no-brainer to me. –BMRR (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid argument in an Afd. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's not; nevertheless, this company meets the standard of having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references contained in the article include magazine articles, trade journal articles, and newspaper articles — in other words, reliable secondary sources. I stand by my keep position. Furthermore, if this is an area of Wikipedia policy that you are particularly passionate about, you should take a look at some of the Wikipedia articles pertaining to New Zealand-based retail companies; I was shocked at how many of them are completely lacking references, and I suspect that a few of them would not meet the WP:CORP guidelines. –BMRR (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a quick look at Category:Retail companies of New Zealand and put one of the articles up for speedy deletion. As for WP policy I am concerned at the lack of a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Seems kind of WP:MILL.~~ The article tries to establish notability, but I don't think it succeeded. This is not a nationally recognized chain. Per the concerns about WP:CORP, I found a list of the top tire chain Link. The top four have pages, the next six didn't and then I stopped looking. MadCow257 (talk) 03:47, 16 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a conflict between two principles: the GNG, which is adequately met, and a general feeling that the chain is not important enough. I do not know how to resolve it as a general matter, but in this case, being a regional chain is sufficient. I draw the line at local, but requiringnation is too high a bar. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is easy to claim an article about a company meets WP:GNG since there can be plenty of refs for articles about them. The same goes for bio articles, which is why specific notability guidelines exist for such articles. I don't know if it is spelt out in policy but I feel that a specific notability guideline should trump the generic one. And this is why we NEED a prescriptive notability guideline for companies. It will also be a good way of fighting spam, especially the articles that hide under a cloak of apparent neutrality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:06, 24 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability by third part sources not established . Sails close to the wind as an advert too. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we trying to build an encyclopaedia or a business directory? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of mentions in passing in independent third party sources, but no significant coverage in them as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the sources are close enough and using IAR, think that a chain of this size is clearly notable. Promotional issues aren't a reason for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:10, 7 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. Courcelles 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bassima[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Can find track lists of some of her albums like this but nothing more. This can certainly be a translation problem but I did search with both the English and Arabic spellings of her name without success. J04n(talk page) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant advertising. --Slashme (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 24 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:52, 30 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.

this page should not have been deleted. this recording artist has been around the scene for more than 10 years and has topped the charts several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoon24 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zachery Tims[edit]

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

Recreated article about a locally notable pastor who had an affair. The article seems mainly to exist as a WP:Coatrack to document his affair.

Previous article was deleted after expired {{prod}}, reason was "A pastor who had an affair. Not notable." The only additional info is about his recent death. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak delete. One question to ask is, was he notable before his death? This, a somewhat random range before his death, suggests he wasn't. This (outside Google News) is better, but reliable sources are harder to find here and, as nominator suggested, there may be no more than an affair. Another question to ask is how widespread coverage of his death is and whether anything comes to light to make this more than a single event. That remains to be seen; it may, it may not. I haven't seen it yet, hence my "weak" delete. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in reliable sources here and here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first isn't worth anything, since the total related content is this: "As Zachary Tims once said ..." The second is from the magazine (in book format, apparently) Charisma and Christianity, which is described (per Google, for the website http://www.charismamag.com/) as something that "provides news, analysis, prophetic commentary and teachings for charismatic and Pentecostal Christians." I'd have to say that fails the reliable sources test.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also mentioned in the huffington post here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.62.226 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — 173.228.62.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete - extremely limited notability and coverage in reliable externals. Notable in his own back yard only. - perhaps a comment about him in a parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 20 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, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing name-drop in one "reference", a bit of coverage in a Charismatic Christian walled garden, and a WP:BLP1E in the HuffPo do not a notable figure create. This isn't Jimmy Swaggart, it's some relatively small-time pastor who, like most of the blowhards, was a blow-sniffing, stripper-chasing hypocrite. Even the Orlando Sentinel coverage alluded to in the HuffPo post still doesn't elevate this guy beyond BLP1E. Badger Drink (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Not that important in himself, but probably significant as part of the general trend of excessive religiosity in America. However, the article as it currently exists is not worth much from any perspective. Though it may be hard to handle any aspect of these topics with a really neutral and objective perspective, they are still significant, from both historic and political perspectives, and if he was a major figure, then he deserves more than a few footnote mentions. I think the largest higher-level topic is probably the religious challenge against the separation of church and state, and there should be an article on that topic, which should link to this article as an example of one side or the other. (I have no idea what particular doctrines he preached, but I still think his preaching must fit into some part of the picture.) Shanen (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the general trend of excessive religiosity in America" (if it exists) or '"religious challenge against the separation of church and state" have to do with this local preacher or with whether to keep the article? Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 26 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The guy had no notability outside of Florida while alive; his peculiar death gave him 15 minutes of fame nationally; not enough for a Wikipedia article. (And speaking of peculiar, one of the "see also" links is Jesus Christ. Huh?) --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I'm evaluating an article under NOT NEWS here, I'm usually trying to justify keeping it. I can't find any significant justification here, and I see no other reason for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Callahan[edit]

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

Non-notable person, author of non-notable book. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- 'Non-notable book' spent 36 weeks on NYT Best Seller list, written about the author's 76 day ordeal at sea. As author, has gone beyond WP:BLP1E. Dru of Id (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:33, 16 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, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adrift: 76 Days Lost At Sea to form one article. Either one by itself might not be all that notable but together they should form a decent enough start. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep: I would consider both the author and the book to be independently notable. The author has, at this point, done notable things outside of writing this book, sufficient to meet BLP1E (though the ordeal detailed in the book is certainly the most notable thing about him), while the book has also had enough coverage to merit its own article. I believe that, if anything, the article on the book could stand to be expanded. Buddy431 (talk) 20:05, 27 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge the book article into this article, leaving a redirect. I agree with Tokyogirl that the articles should be combined, and this Steven Callahan article is much more complete than the Adrift article, which is a mere stub. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW suggestion to nominator: before dismissing him as "non-notable author of a non-notable book" you might have taken a look at Google News Archive, per WP:BEFORE. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a common dilemma when the notability of an author is due to only a single book, but he had notability before the book as a sailor & designer. Most of the material here, though, should be transferred to the article on the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 5 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 Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to increase windows xp shutdown speed[edit]

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

Wrong place to put it -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Instructions. WP is not an instructions manual Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, WP:NOT#INSTRUCTIONS. Msnicki (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Pit-yacker (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 30 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Williams, Jr.[edit]

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

Article about person not notable (claims actor, but significantly fails WP:ENTERTAINER), and otherwise only claims son of famous actor - appears to be vanity piece. Sources also lacking and not apparently available on relevant searches. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody trading off the notability of his father. Notability isn't inherited Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Notability is not inherited from his famous father. Aside from incidental coverage as a stand-in for his father, he gets no RS attention at all. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. No objection to a consensus to redirect. Still not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both "Guy Williams, Jr." and "Guy Steven Catalano" as reasonable search terms to his father's article at Guy Williams (actor)#First artistic steps where he is already mentioned in context to his father. Yes, he does not have enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT to merit a seperate article, but as his cogerage is in relation to his father, he is at least worth that familial mention in his dad's article. If or when his career ever grows and independent notability is not in doubt, the redirect can be reverted and the article then expanded and sourced acordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the redirect option. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Will Robinson Redirect to his father's article per MQS's reasoning. It's a valid search term and it can easily be restored if he becomes notable later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note It was pointed out to me that information about the son was not sourced in the article about the father. I have addressed that lack,[8] and now recommend the redirect go instead to Guy Williams (actor)#Homages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MQS, redirects are cheap and he is mentioned there. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Independent entry fails WP:GNG--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:22, 7 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. Courcelles 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon Morris[edit]

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

Difficult to tell if this person is notable due to the promotional tone of the article, but past the puffery I am not seeing any reliable, secondary sources that discuss this person either online or in the article. This was deleted per a PROD rationale last year as spam, and this version does not seem much improved. VQuakr (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete closely resembles a variety of tinned pork Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've done some de-puffing, removed a couple of unreliable or paywalled sources, and frankly there's not much left. None of the sources listed make any clear case for notability, but if all the claims are true he might just pass the professor test on criteria 1, 3 and (almost) 8. As the article stands, though, it's not adequate for Wikipedia. Yunshui (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an encyclopedic biographical article, this is List of stuff relating to Langdon Morris. This needs to be fixed or put out of its misery. I advise the latter course. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the first version of this piece wasn't an encyclopedic biographical article either: His work focuses on developing and applying advanced methods in innovation and strategy to solve complex problems with very high levels of creativity. [1] He is recognized as one the world’s leading thinkers and consultants on innovation, and his original and ground-breaking work has been adopted by corporations and universities on every continent to help them improve their innovation processes and the results they achieve. Blech. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the cleanup this still looks a lot more like a cv than an encyclopedia article, and Google news search did not find any sources that would allow him to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gives every appearance of being an autobiographical article WP:AUTO WP:PROMOTION WP:SPA. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling turns up hits to the subject's own books but nothing by anyone else that I can see. Msnicki (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete professor-writer with no characteristics-of-noteCurb Chain (talk) 09:28, 6 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 merge to Institute for Palestine Studies. Courcelles 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Quarterly[edit]

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

no references, sources, notability Soosim (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Institute of Jerusalem Studies. Marokwitz (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge NOT to Institute of Jerusalem Studies since that too, seems worthy of deletion, but rather, put both of these into Institute_for_Palestine_Studies, no? Soosim (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Institute_for_Palestine_Studies, and even merge Institute of Jerusalem Studies too. CapMan07008 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Soosim and CapMan07008. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 1 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: deleted as copyvio of http://wn.com/Isrisingh. – Athaenara ✉ 09:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwari Singh[edit]

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

Article originally tagged in 2009, copy-pasted from original Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've tagged this for speedy per G12; it's a far-too-close paraphrase of the original. Yunshui (talk) 08:59, 30 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 17:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compensated emancipation[edit]

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

The article has existed for a number of years, and is still completely unsourced. The second paragraph begins with the statement "Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery did so through some form of compensated emancipation", and then discusses emancipation in the US, with the implication that emancipation without compensation to the slaveholder only occured in the US after the Civil War in the South. It then lists a number of countries claimed to have paid slaveowners for emancipation; this is not true in the case of Chile nor in most Latin American countries, who generally had laws providing that all slaves born after a certain date would be free, or freed after several years of service. Emancipation in the British Empire was long process, and I can find only one ocassion in which it was paid. I don't know much about the French, but given the previously mentioned inaccuracies, I don't have much confidence in the article on that point either. My source -- Hinks, Peter P. and McKivigan, John R.,(2007) Encyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolition Westport: Greenwood Press PoloJoe (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have to think this is an article that needs improving, rather than deleting. The topic itself seems article-worthy, and there are thousands of Google Scholar hits, 10s of thousands of GBooks. Agricolae (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the topic is truly noteworthy but the contents are unsourced, then two alternatives would be to stub it down to a single sentence, in the hope that someone might find sources and fix it, or to redirect it to an article on the more general topic, like Emancipation, where it might grow organically. Will Beback talk 10:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really a dictionary definition. Should be covered in Emancipation as Will said. Info on specific instances should have individual articles, as the Washington DC case (the only one in the article with substantial coverage) already does. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far more than a dictionary concept per [9] which has an entire chapter thereon, [10], [11] debate in Congress thereon about Missouri, [12] and so on -- all specifically dealing not with a "definition" but with actual historical events. In short - a notable topic, and one which can be fully sourced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the historical events should be well covered in WP. I don't quite see how the readers are served by an article putting the events together because they are all examples of compensated emancipation. For instance we wouldn't have articles on "close election," "short war," or "broken treaty" even though these are important things in history.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Landslide victory which ends up being a list and article combination. So Wikipedia would not have such an article? Not. See Close elections. Smile. Collect (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on those points. However I am still not sure that an article on compensated emancipation is really WP-correct if all it says is that it is emancipation that is compensated and then points to examples. I would say the same about landslide victory and close election. Still I don't think keeping the article is such a bad thing. It is a very interesting topic, I say as an American with a stong feeling for the importance of history. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some refs and some rewriting. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--looking at Emancipation, that page basically seems to be a disambiguation page. The best targets for a merge, IMHO, would be either manumission or abolitionism. But neither of those seem to be a great target, since compensated emancipation has important differences from both (although you could argue that it's a substrain of abolitionism). The rework done by Agricolae shows pretty clearly that this is a distinct concept that's best handled in its own article. Meelar (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The problem with sourcing has been fixed (mostly by Agricolae), and notability is not a concern given the number of Google Books / Google hits. jonkerz ♠ 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big improvements. Good work. Will Beback talk 10:51, 2 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. Courcelles 17:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BollySpice[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it doesn't quality per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. The website has not received specific coverage from independent, notable third party sources or newspapers. Its content has not won a well-known and independent award, and is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Scieberking (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Scieberking (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 31 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 Withdrawn. Sorry, I really did attempt WP:BEFORE by a standard and gnews search using those same search criteria. Not sure why I didn't come across those. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamin Winans[edit]

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

Filmmaker whose notability is only currently supported by IMDB and primary sources. One of the filmmaker's films has certainly reached notability standards, but I am less certain that the individual fulfills the notability criteria for creative professionals. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:CREATIVE for his work receiving critcal commentary and review, and WP:GNG for being covered in multiple independent sources in relationship to his works.[13] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 30 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. Nomination withdrawn. Discussion consensus indicated the subject meets WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Shapiro[edit]

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

Minor scientist with some idiosyncratic views on evolution. These views have garnered him some small notoriety in the blogosphere, but reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research. Article is currently completely lacking third party coverage. No indication that topic meets WP:PROF, nor any articulation of any particular notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, as the article finally (and thanks to David Eppstein) demonstrates that the topic does not fall afoul of the third bullet-point inWP:PROF#General notes:. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing but please note that it is the nominator's duty to do this work under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in WP:BEFORE that suggests that the nominator should be aware of anything not apparent in the article or through "a minute or two" on Google News/Books/Scholar. Claims that the nominator failed to perform his WP:BEFORE duties are simply a failure to observe WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a discussion around the issues of Good Faith and Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strange, I see nothing on that page that suggests that wikt:omniscience and wikt:competence are synonyms. I would suggest that Xxanthippe take a long walk off a short planks, and take his unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable accusations with them. That wikt:hindsight is no basis for WP:BEFORE should be obvious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I checked Infotrac and could not find any third party coverage. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 38, even in highly cited field, passes WP:Prof#C1 with ease. Absurd nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
strong keep. for real? the guy meets wp:academic(1) by having 9 papers with over 100 citations per google scholar, two of them over 350 cites, and one of those in the proceedings of the national academy of sciences. he meets wp:academic(3) by being a fellow of the aaas, and, as people are wont to say in these discussions, the guy has an h-index of 38 per google scholar. that is evidently quite high as these things go, you could look it up. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment edit conflict! i thought, Xxanthippe, that for once i was going to beat you to the g.s. h-index, but actually, no, you were there first. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WoS concurs with the GS results: h-index around 28 with several sole-authored papers having hundreds of cites. Conclusive "keep" on WP:PROF #1. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Snowball keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C3. I added the AAAS Fellow to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't so sure, but I guess AAAS fellow is a clear #C3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator would remind StAnselm of WP:AGF and that there was nothing in the article prior to nomination to suggest that the topic might meet WP:PROF, and that there is still nothing in the article to suggest he overcomes that criteria's 'General note' that "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on referring only to the contents of the article itself strongly hints that you still haven't read WP:BEFORE, or at least that you haven't carried out part D of that guideline, which suggests that you carry out a Google news archive search on the subject prior to nomination. I did, and found plenty of meat. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "strongly hints that you still haven't read" the article's talkpage before making this accusation. If you had, you find that I had (i) placed a find-template there and (ii) stated that I had checked its results before even placing a {{notability}} on the article. What I was in fact mainly referring to was Shapiro's being a Fellow in the AAAS (of which there was no indication before nomination), so please tell me where WP:BEFORE states that you should check all the potential scholarly societies on the off-chance that the topic may be a Fellow? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — the fact that he is a fellow of the aaas is mentioned in his vitae, which was included in the references before the afd was started. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of these 'keep' !votes address the "lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject", and the fact that WP:PROF clearly states that lacking such sources a topic may "not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia" even if it meets specific criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply — the guy's a fellow of the aaas per their website. this is a reliable independent source proving that the guy meets wp:prof(3). the guy has a h-index of 38 per google scholar. this is a reliable independent source proving that the guy meets wp:prof(1). your nomination doesn't address the fact that wp:prof states If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. this guy meets two easily, no need to check for others. wp:before asks the nominator specifically to take reasonable steps to check for reliable sources, not merely to look in the article to see if there are any already present. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for bare mention from the AAAS itself for his Fellow status there, the references for this article are: Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro & Shapiro. That is not "reliable, independent sources on the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right. He is notable but there aren't enough reliable, secondary sources found so far to write an adequate article. So, in my opinion, the article should be deleted for now. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe. Clear pass of WP:PROF. -- 202.124.73.148 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a/c WP:PROF, He is an expert in his field, as shown by the citations for his papers. To demonstrate that, they should be added to the article. for the most cited papers. Those citations are the necessary third party sources. Now, we could go the whole hog, and add under each appear a complete list of everyone who cited it, probably about 400 or 500 cites in all, and look in each of them for substantial discussions of his work which would normally be expected to be in about half of them, and so find about 200 3rd party RS substantial sources. But this is the level of analysis of a persons work which is bet=st left for the most specialized of biographical monographs, and wildly out of place in an encyclopedia . So we summarize with the citation count. (which is summarized by the h index -- a high h index shows notability as a practical measurement, when account is taken of the subject field. Further, he was one of the 3 eds of the CSH Symposium DNA insertion elements, plasmids, and episomes, also held in over 400 libraries. This is the most ditiguinshed symposium series in molecular biology, and being an editor of one of their vols in a sign of academic distinction.

In addition, he is also notable under WP:AUTHOR. He has 2 major published books, Mobile genetic elements by AcademicPress, in over 500 worldcat libraries (and with 268 citations in GScholar); , and Bacteria as multicellular organisms by OUP , with over 430 holdings. They will have reviews also.

This is quite enough to write an article about his work, and his work it is that makes him notable. We have WP:PROF because the GNG is hard to apply to academics, but if one really wants to go by the GNG, theres all those hundreds of citations. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you DGG for ignoring my comment above and ignoring the 'General Notes' in WP:PROF which state: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." WP:PROF most emphatically does not give permission to opt out of WP:GNG! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I listed some source from The New York Times and The Chicago Sun-Times at Talk:James A. Shapiro. Many more are available if needed. Drrll (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt rebuttal: the NYT pieces are covered by my nomination: "reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research." The purported CST piece is actually attributed to "University of Chicago" -- Shapiro's own employer -- so hardly independent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about letting others judge for themselves whether any of the NYT references are "very brief and highly tangential," instead of striking the references from my comments at Talk:James A. Shapiro. And as others can see for themselves there, the Chicago Sun-Times article, which heavily focuses on Shapiro, is from the CTS (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1559253.html). Drrll (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the URLs in no way renders them inaccessible, so in no way prevents "others judg[ing] for themselves". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a snowball keep here anyway, based on WP:PROF, but the NYT sources from Drrll ([14] and [15]) certainly add to the case, and should go into the article. -- 202.124.75.180 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case the outcome was not already obvious, this 1992 New York Times profile should seal the deal. I have been working on improving the article and will try to add it today. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: those making WP:BEFORE accusations should read the actual contents of its 'sourcing search' section

;D. Sourcing search
The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.

If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may be still be appropriate.

In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.

I'm fairly sure I met these requirements. 07:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General theorem of all temporary spaces[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's about a book, so I don't think OR is the target. I mean, it could be a perfectly acceptable explanation of what the book says. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Searching Google, Worldcat, and other ISBN search tools reveals no evidence that the indicated book exists; presumably it is self-published. It certainly fails WP:GNG. -- 202.124.73.145 (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete borders on wp:nonsense. the original book seems to be self-published effort in russian, no less, with no translation available. it hasn't been discussed anywhere that i can find other than some quite non-reliable-looking websites in russian. it's OR and nonsense as science, and as an artifact capable of sustaining notability on its own, nevertheless completely fails to do so. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article about a book that is not notable about a fringe theory that is not notable by an author who is not notable. A Russian version of this article has been speedy deleted from the Russian Wikipedia for lacking "evidence of encyclopedic significance". --Lambiam 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note — for the future: page creator posted to talk page of this discussion instead of here. (noting for sake of latecomers to discussion). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:17, 31 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 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium Cafe[edit]

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

Regional restaurant of questionable notability. I have recently removed a lot of promotional content that the page was originally being used for ([16]). The establishment has apparently won an award as the "Canadian Franchise Association's Franchisee's Choice" this year. However, 30+ other restaurants also received this distinction, and restaurant owners must be members of the trade organization in order to receive the award. I have also been unable to find reviews or Gnews hits of the restaurant in third-party, independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. PK T(alk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources and rather spammy to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, as all above, and no characteristics-of-note to make this notable among peersCurb Chain (talk) 09:07, 6 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 redirected per WP:SNOW, seems like an obvious case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deryl Dedmon[edit]

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

This article is about a teenaged WP:NPF who has been charged with a grisly murder and possible hate crime, but not convicted. This is one of two articles being used to showcase the prejudicial material being leaked to the press of alleged racist remarks by this suspect. I am also filing an AfD on Murder of James Craig Anderson for the same reason. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every statement is both well-cited and labeled as alleged, so WP:BLP does not apply, but WP:NOTCENSORED does. High profile Lynching in the United States, hate crimes and civil rights cases like this are highly notable with significant national coverage. By the nominator's logic, we'd be deleting 2011 Norway attacks and Anders Behring Breivik as well. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be OK now that James Craig Anderson has been renamed Murder of James Craig Anderson. Toddst1 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of James Craig Anderson This kid's done nothing else, thus a one event-case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of James Craig Anderson per WP:PERP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 30 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 BLP issues, if any, can be fixed by editing. Consensus is that the topic should remain. Courcelles 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of James Craig Anderson[edit]

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

This article about a violent death that is suspected of being a hate crime violates WP:BLP policy concerning the teenage suspect it names, Deryl Dedmon, particularly WP:NPF. Dedmon has been charged with murder, not convicted of murder. The leaking of prejudicial claims to the newspapers should not be legitimized by Wikipedia. I am also filing an AfD on Deryl Dedmon for the same reason. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP does not apply here, but WP:NOTCENSORED does. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every statement is both well-cited and attribution to individuals are all labeled as alleged, so WP:BLP does not apply. By the nominator's logic, we'd be deleting 2011 Norway attacks as well.

Beyond that, high profile Lynching in the United States, hate crimes and civil rights cases like this are often exceptions to WP:VICTIM. Examples are Willie Edwards, Michael Donald, Matthew Shepard, Emmett Till, Jimmie Lee Jackson to highlight a few. Sometimes they're covered in an article about the crime like Murder of James Byrd, Jr. as in this case. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm tempted to think that this passes WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, as the sources are national, with wide and fairly in depth coverage. The long term effects are unable to be known at the moment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are good and article is not harmful to anyone named via BLP.Jarhed (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The hate crime appears fairly pedestrian yet it has received coverage in the NYT and the Sacramento Bee, and has been syndicated, which could arguably make it a notable incident. This seems to be part of a slightly worrying trend where, for individuals who are notable but for one event, articles morph to an event, which may or may not pass genuine scrutiny. I personally think this does not. I don't see anything coming out of it in the long term. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're serious: A fairly pedestrian hate crime? Toddst1 (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he refers to the fact the victim was a pedestrian? sorry, it just begged for it... :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all mention of "suspect" and the redirect in his name. Per WP:BLP. Else delete the whole mess. Wikipedia is not a police blotter for the world. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are deleted elsewhere, although if this article is deleted, so will this redirect.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does not fail WP:BLP´. Everything is well cited and correct.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of mainstream news coverage, suspect's name has been widely reported. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NawlinWiki, BabbaQ et al. Writegeist (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NEVENTS with flying colors, this murder case has become a symbol of existing violent racism in the USA, and dominates current public discourse on race. That is a highly notable, encyclopedic topic. We are not a police blotter, but this case is clearly not a pedestrian hate crime as not being treated as such by the RS. Issues around BLP, if any, should be treated in the article, not via deletion of the article on the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 September 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Black (Artist)[edit]

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

Delete − The subject falls way short of WP:ARTIST. This article is about an "emerging" artist. Almost all of the references are published by the subject, or her agent: Tristian Koening. There is only one third party reference, and that is a single page in a magazine that will be published next month. The subject does not meet the general notability criteria WP:N or the specific criteria WP:ARTIST. Any online searcher prove futile because there is a very famous American actress, screenwriter, singer, and songwriter of the same name. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the article fails to meet the standards of WP:ARTIST and there will probably not be enough hits for this page.Housewatcher (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Emerging artist means exactly that - other sources are dubious referential value. she has a very limited recognition. catalogues don't count as reliable third party sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Emerging artist = non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable, see WP:NEXTBIGTHING. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 30 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. The discussion reveals concern about self-promotion, which is not in itself reason for deletion, and notability, which is. The author is encouraged to allow reliable sources to note his work, and a disinterested and unaffiliated party to write about him when they do. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Allan Sullivan[edit]

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

Self published author/independent filmmaker of questionable notability. No IMDB pages for the films or filmmaker. Google search on "Clifford Allan Sullivan" shows only 94 unique results. Some local news mentions, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:GNG by a long way. Debutant filmmaker's biography which cited only very local radio coverage, commercial sites. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be an article created in WP:COI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read in Full. Here are the IMDB pages for my films: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2039379/ (and) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2039381/ Article in Times and Transcript Newspaper: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/article/1436472 Self published author, not true I have a publishing contract with "Rose Bay Publishing Worldwide". They paid me not the other way around. They paid me a sign on bonus of $40,000. Plus I get paid for every book sold. My book is available in over 190 bookstores. My book in a bookstore near you: http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781456022549 You can order and buy my book on, one of the following bookstore websites or you can visit their local bookstore: http://cliffordallansullivan.webstarts.com/uploads/191_Retail_Bookstores_CAS.pdf Writer cas (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I've returned the comment removed by the article's author,[17] as not imflamatory, cogent to the issue of COI, and editors are quite able to disregard the profferred external links) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To User:Writer cas as the article's subject and author and his having commented above: The WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources speaking about you. The Times & Transcript is a good beginning, and I did find an article in Horror Society, but for notability we need more. I congratulate you on having authored Was It Really Love ISBN 1456022547, and I do not doubt for a moment that the book is available and is being sold on Amazon and others, but for it to be considered toward notability we need reviews and commentary of the book itself in reliable sources. I further congratulate you on your two films. However, they need to be screened at festivals and/or aired on television and THEN be the subject of reviews and commentary in reliable sources. But what is most probematic here though is that WP:SELFPROMOTE strongly discourages editors from writing about themselves and their projects, and the [article's edit history shows that it was written by you and about yourself and your projects. I would usually suggest that permature aricles get userfied back to their authors to await developments, but WP:COI indicates that such would not be for the best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NotJustYet Nominator User:MikeWazowski did fail partially in his statement, as there ARE IMDb pages for the filmmaker[18] and his films,[19][20] and the problematic use of WP:GHITS is not a strong reason to delete. WP:BIO and WP:GNG do not demand worldwide coverage. And as Times & Transcript IS a reliable source,[21] even if "local" to Canada, we cannot dismiss it, specially as it does speak about the subject directly and in detail, and "local" to Canada is fine for en.Wikipedia. That said though, there are not enough reliable sources available to meet WP:GNG. Because of the author's WP:COI, I ask that whomever closes this, userfy it to me to me at WP:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Clifford Allan Sullivan so I can myself keep a watch eye toward that time in a month or two when a more suitable sourced version might be ready for article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the time of the nomination, the IMDB pages did not exist. They apparently went live right when Sullivan posted the link to them thee days later. it's too bad that the IMDB doesn't show date of addition, because all of the pages there related to him have been added since this AfD began - I do not miss or fudge important details like that when nominating articles, Michael... MikeWazowski (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sometimes IMDB film pages DO state when they were last updated... but no, not always, and not in this case. So pardon if I implied lack of diligence, as the films were otherwise sourcable. Please note that I do agree with you that this BLP is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic example of promotion--not just the article, but the defense of it above, where, the subject could apparently not resist the opportunity to advertise the availability of his book, despite the utter inappropriateness of this forum. I try to not let the behavior of a COI editor influence me in evaluating the article, but this time I think it adds inescapably to the overall impression. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But as he does have a film slated to appear on television, and as it and another are about to begin festival rounds, I am willing as an uninvolved editor to hold this in a sandbox and improve it if better sources come forward after the films get seen. In my hands his self promotion will be removed and the article made properly neutral and encyclopedic. And toward his poor sources and self-promotion, on his talk page I urged that he read Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and WP:NAU in order to get some clue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anonymous IP 69.168.144.136 just decimated the article,[22] removing reliable sources, sourcable content and the AFD template. We don't do that here, even if an article looks to be deleted. I'll go make some repairs, as even if it is to be deleted, editors have the right to judge it as nominated... not as a one-line unsourced stub. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum I've just performed the promised damage control Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is the key issue. Things to be completed in the future are not notable. They become notable once completed. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:27, 7 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 redirect to Talib Nagar. While the consensus was for deletion, the edit history must be retained to provide proper attribution. In the future, please move articles to a new title rather than cutting and pasting parts of one article to another. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talib Nagar State[edit]

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

There is no mention of Talibnagar, as a Princely State anywhere. The google search [23] for the result comes to zero. Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The creator may change the page to Talibnagar, which at present is a village in Uttar Pradesh and add these contents in its history. But the name Talibnagar State gives a false notion that it was princely state.Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 23 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) 02:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did a reference check and no reference to such state, so I'm gonna say Delete unless some gives reasons that suggest otherwise CapMan07008 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that the creator of the page has not taken any interest in either improving the article or put his opinion forward. I have created a new page Talib Nagar in which I have put some of the contents of this page. As Talib Nagar was never a Princely state this page Talib Nagar State should be deletedJethwarp (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More sources are needed to prove that it was a Princely state. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:33, 7 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kincardine Beach Pavilion[edit]

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

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Source and information are not proper --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability in the article, absolutely fails GNG --Slashme (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was nominated for deletion less than 2 hours after it was created. There are available references that I've added to the article. Whether these are sufficient to demonstrate notability, I'm dubious, but there is a case not only for WP:BEFORE but for a period of working with an editor to improve a new article rather than jumping to AfD. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. This article is about 1 day old, and this AfD is way too premature. Re-nominate at a later date if notability cannot be established, but give time for developing it. Comment: the article needs a good proof-read, and the heading that's in all-caps has to be rewritten using proper capitalization. PK T(alk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Opinion changed because article's initiator hasn't done anything to help salvage his/her work. PK T(alk) 07:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup nor is there a WP:Deadline. AFD is to get consensus about the potential of a Articles. What your implying is that if Stubs cant rise to Article status before the end of AFD's they deserve to be deleted ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:02, 31 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) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge into Kincardine, Ontario.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable building. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Dolphin (t) 22:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it was notable enough in its day to draw notable bands, and there are RS's out there for it, but it does need work to bring it above stub status. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely nothing to indicate notability in the article, or at Google or Google News Archive, or even on the website of this local dance hall. No historic importance, no coverage at all except for a couple of local "this event will be held at the Kincardine Beach Pavilion" type listings. Nobody seems to have given it a historic designation, and if there are Reliable Sources out there as claimed by Exit, I couldn't find them - just the one mention in a highly specialized book. BTW about half of the article is copied verbatim from the pavilion's own website [24]. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete venue is indistinctCurb Chain (talk) 09:00, 6 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. Courcelles 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETICS[edit]

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

Non-notable project. One of a number of articles created in an effort to promote the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Hardly any of these have notability independent from their organizers/participants and this one is no exception. No independent sources (references present are articles/presentations by project members, no significant third-party coverage). Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 23 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) 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU research program with vague but ambitious goals and no evidence of tangible achievement. Current text violates neutrality and is too imprecise to improve by editing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The achievements of ETICS project are exploited by several other large follow-up projects, initiatives, and companies. E.g. among others the European Middleware Initiative (EMI), the SCIentific gateway Based User Support (SCI-BUS) project, and the 4D SOFT Ltd. - Robert Lovas - 11:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — rlovas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that notability has nothing to do with good, bad, or achievements. --Crusio (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication of notability and various searches turn up nothing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:43, 4 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 merge to The Getaway (series). Courcelles 16:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Getaway (video game sequel)[edit]

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

1. This video game is vaporware; it does not exist. (I have seen many other Wiki articles for games that actually exist deleted due to lack of notability.)
2. This video game is mentioned in the Wiki article " The Getaway (series)"; that's sufficient for a non-existent game.
3. The title of this Wiki article is ridiculous, which demonstrates that the article detracts from the overall quality of Wikipedia. ProResearcher (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1) Could we please have the reliable reference that you're using that proves it doesn't exist. It will be helpful in adding to the other references that already prove notability. Supposedly being "vapourware" is not a valid reason for deletion, usually the opposite. What happens to other articles is equally not of importance (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

2) If you think it would be better if the article were merged into the series article, then why nominate it for deletion? Point 6 on the "Before nominating an article for deletion" section of the AFD page should have leapt out at you.

3) Disagreeing with an article name is, again, not grounds for deletion. If you think the article would be better located at The Getaway 3 then you could have raised it on the article talk page or at the Wikipedia Video Games Project (WT:VG)

I can see no problem with the article's current form that warrants its deletion. - X201 (talk) 11:28, 23 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) X201 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC) - X201 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting my time, X201, which would be better spent cleaning up other messes in Wikipedia.

"Could we please have the reliable reference that you're using that proves it doesn't exist."

Did you read the article? It includes a reference. In the meantime, please give me a reliable reference that proves orcs or any other non-existent beings don't exist.

"better if the article were merged into the series article"

The series article already contains a sufficient amount of information for a vaporware game.

"you could have raised it on the article talk page"

CLEARLY, you did not read the article. I already put it on the talk page before your comment (check the datetime stamps).

ProResearcher (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point. The article contains reliable references that prove the game has not been cancelled. The game is in development which has currently been paused whilst Sony London focus on other titles, it has not been cancelled. WP:VG have hundreds of articles on games that are in development, and as long as they meet the requirements of an article; such as reliable sourcing etc, the fact those games have not yet been released is not a viable reason for deleting them.

Regarding your talk page post - Placing your views on a discussion page at 10:40 and then proposing the article for deletion nine minutes later is not conducive to the spirit of discussion and consensus building that WP is built upon. - X201 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge – The sequel generated some news, but there's not really enough information about the game to warrant a full article. I think it should be merged into the series article and a redirect created, or left as it. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:18, 29 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) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There is not enough information for this to have it's own Wikipedia page. Plus, the video game was put on hold in 2009 and now it is 2011 and there is still no announcement it will come out. I think it needs to be merged at least until it is actually released.Housewatcher (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Getaway (series). Not even material to warrant its own article, but the information itself is clearly notable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series. Clearly not enough coverage to warrant its own article. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:55, 6 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. Courcelles 16:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Luckin[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability requirements at WP:ORG. Repeatedly recreated after being deleted as not notable. Apparently created by the marketing director of the company. noq (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously deleted as it was incomplete and unpublished at the time. The requirements should now be met as the notability issue has now been addressed, thank you very much. JennyDCook (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — JennyDCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 23 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) 01:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only possible argument i can see for this firm's notability would come from this incident, in which bird luckin was reprimanded and fined for their role in a british stock scandal. not so surprisingly, this incident is not mentioned in the article under discussion here. even if it were mentioned, though, i believe that the article would fail wp:oneevent, since even the one event is not notable. ironically, many of the passing mentions of this company in the british press, like this one from the independent, refer to bird luckin as "little-known". thus does what there is of the press coverage, and there's not much, make a case against this firm's meeting wp:company. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill accounting firm. They exist, they contribute to charity, that's about it. As Alf pointed out, their only Reliable Source publicity came from their involvement in a scandal,[25] and those Reliable Source news stories describe the company as "little known", a "small" company "ill-equipped" to deal with major accounting responsibilities.[26] An article could be written based on those Reliable Sources, but I suspect the promoters of this article wouldn't like the result very much. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 5 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. Courcelles 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Ruffin[edit]

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

This article is about a musical artist / producer that asserts notability, but it is not backed up with references. There's a information that I had to remove (see diff) as it was a copyvio taken from the subject's facebook page. In any case, that text was highly promotional, full of name-dropping, and covered the successes of the subject's uncle and father which is not relevant to notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I searched for sourcing and could find no significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. The assertion of a Brit Award is unsubstantiated, and in particular, List of BRIT Awards ceremonies doesn't seem to support the assertion. Whpq (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 23 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) 01:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Saw this originally as a part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, and though I was able to add a source to verify his basic identity, I could not confirm much of the content. The nomination is well-taken.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was PRODed at Aug 3, but I contested the PROD based on the assertion of the awards. I thought the BRIT Award would establish notability. I did spend quite some time searching before I came to the conclusion that the claim for the award is bogus. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any proof of it, perhaps the IP editor trying to re-puff the article right now will tell us!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. Does not appear to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n. I'm not finding any significant coverage; fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 06:23, 3 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. Courcelles 16:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced WP:Listcruft: it's a well-known show, and if a person is important enough to be on the show, they are most likely going to be well known already. There is no reason to devote a list to just those who have appeared on the show. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Piers Morgan Tonight guests and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination). This list is not consistent with Wikipedia content, and the information can be gleaned from a link via the Howard Stern entry link marked Marksfriggin.com. This information does not merit its own page, and if left unchecked, could set a precedent for every talk show ever in existence to have an unreferenced list on Wikipedia of guests that may have appeared on the show. Additionally, this information is unverifiable through conventional media sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a second nomination, see the previous AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity guests on the Howard Stern show, which was closed with no consensus. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I were God, I'd delete because this would be a topic that would make me regret having created humankind, or at least the radio. As a mere Wikipedian, my reason for voting to delete is because the list is unsourced, unverifiable and unmaintainable. Bella the Ball (talk) 21:19, 25 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) 01:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is mostly unsourced and generally uninformative (many of the guests are identified only by name with no indication of when they appeared on the show). It is also inexplicably alphabetized by first name instead of surname. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that doesn't have much relevance.Housewatcher (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep the cruft cruftworthy. Unsourced and uninformative. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that we do not discriminate based on quality or our esthetic or moral opinions. There's at least one !vote above based on intrinsic dislike for the program as a whole. The list can be verified--an archive of the programs exists and the show received a considerable degree of public notice; it can be sourced for it is usually mentioned in the article about the person and that would presumably have a source; it is not unmaintainable--a finite number of people appeared; it is not indiscriminate, because its limited to those with Wikipedia articles; and whether it's presented in the wrong alphabetical article can be solved easily enough by editing. It's extensive to enough to be worth a separate article, but a merge with the article on the show does remain a possibility. I had not noticed the two deleted articles, but I would have said essentially the same there, though without the first two sentences, which would not have been applicable. Fortunately, we can correct our mistakes. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in keeping a list of only people who have articles on wikipedia; that defeats the purpose of the intention of Howard Stern for The Howard Stern Show.Curb Chain (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't start making lists for every radio program listing their guests.Curb Chain (talk) 08:38, 6 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Jane[edit]

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

No notability. Notability asserted is that she is a "You Tube sensation". A singer but no reliable refs and just one local TV appearance Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has professional produced videos seen on VH1. The article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.12.128 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This one has a little more credibility than most Youtube sensations having made an appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show. Coverage (in Vietnamese) here. That is the most substantial item I was able to dig up. Minor mentions on Billboard, soemthing in Portuguese, and CBS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 25 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) 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider that she currently over 30 million views for 'Price Tag' I consider her to be absolutely notable now. Because little is known about her does not make for a good reason to delete the small amount of information that is known. It may just mean that she has some parents that are doing a fabulous job of protecting her. Ed Wilson— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.107.109 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to dig into her as she is on Spotify which here music has been added to. Other than this, little is known about the artist. [[27]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddiiee (talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the quality of the productions uploaded to YouTube, there is considerable probability that Maddi Jane is going to be in the public view for some time. Unless she turns out to be unable to perform consistently, Maddi Jane has the markings of a rising star. The internet is becoming more widely viewed than traditional media, and YouTube is an extremely popular site to see new acts, and videos by notable entertainers. This is the new 'Gong Show', with millions of judges. If, after a period of time, say one year, this entertainer is not widely known, then the entry could be justifiably deleted. There is little available about Maddi Jane because she has not been promoted for very long, which does not indicate anything about her potential popularity. And her voice is likely to change in the near future, which may have a large impact on her singing. For no other reason than the desire to know this entertainer's age, having a wiki entry is worthwhile. Scott P. Holman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scootwhoman (talk • contribs) 08:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's backwards. We don't create articles for people who might become notable in the future. If your predictions of fame and success in the next year are correct, then the coverage will exist then to establish notability, and then would be the time to create an article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite impressed by her YouTube productions, especially the Adele cover, and almost 30 million views for "Price Tag" is impressive, too, but apart from other considerations, the article contains only minimal information. If that's all that can be said about Maddi Jane, I'd delete the article. --Bernardoni (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you should keep the article. I was searching for information on her after being introduced to her music by a friend in the Philippines. First, that shows that people such as myself are looking for information on her music. Second, she has an international following. Not really a youtube editor though. {{subst:unsignedip}}

Delete Run of the mill youtube poster and guest on Ellent Degeneres. Doesn't make her notable.Curb Chain (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, for she may become notable but does not yet reach that point. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE as I am unable to locate reliable source coverage. While she may be notable in the future, WP:CRYSTAL suggests we would need notability now and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for future notability or a means to help establish such notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:14, 7 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 no consensus. This is leaning, numerically, towards a keep. By strength of argument, slightly towards delete. Either way, calling this one way or the other would be nothing but a supervote after 14 days. And I know how annoying a no consensus close is on a third AFD, but that's exactly what we have. Courcelles 16:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Mongolia relations[edit]

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

Per User talk:Shimeru#AfD review request, I'm continuing this process here. There I wrote that I would like the former closing admin to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination) again, in light of three things:

They closed it as no consensus without it having been relisted. It could have been given some more time instead.
The keep !votes were mostly contested based on WP:V and WP:NOR and AFAICT this wasn't answered. Therefore, they might be invalid.
It's been another year and the article is still in the same state, proving my point on it being hopeless.

This position was supported as by the previous closing admin as a good reason to do this. Also, my attempt to merge the article a few months ago was reverted repetitively, so there's no other recourse than to relist it for deletion to try to get a consensus once again. In any case, the basic reasons for deletion have already been explained at length at the 2nd nomination, and at the article talk page, please don't make me repeat it all over again :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the numerous sources covering this relationship directly and in detail. The nominator really needs to explain what has changed since the last (two) AfDs for this article. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, so we have to do this whole dance again. There exist a handful of sources that directly cover details of what we can call the "relations" between the two countries, yes. But that there is nevertheless not a single secondary source that addresses the actual topic of the article as a whole directly and in detail. The standalone article about this topic is an egregious violation of WP:SYNTH, where multiple events, a bunch of them from a completely irrelevant and discontiguous period in the Dark Ages (!), are conflated into a single story, one that does not exist as an actual notable story in real life. Please, do try to read the previous AfD discussion, it's all explained there already, contested, explained again, contested again, explained again, repetitio ad nauseam. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these bilateral articles are about the actual notable relations between nation states, not ancient history of vastly different geographic boundaries. The modern relations are factoids, a few students studied there, a bit of aid, a one off visit. There is no evidence that these 2 nations have notable trade, regular high level visits, significant migration, military cooperation. Will reconsider when these 2 sign a major trade agreement and both countries decide to open embassies. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again Joy, there has been 0 change in the article itself in months and you nominate it again? Don't waste all of our time with this stuff. Just because you don't like it, does not mean it should not exist.--TM 11:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there's been 0 change is exactly why I'm nominating it again - it's another succinct demonstration how the article cannot be improved simply with further editing. There is apparently nothing to add to the article, so given that we know we can't make it compliant with policy, we should drop it. (In fact nowadays I actually like the article personally, it's like a bizarre installation of some sort, an art form.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't find any pressing need for deletion, the article contains valid information that is well sourced, and potentially of interest (I was interested). I know that the merits of deletion should not be argued by comparison with other articles, nevertheless I feel I should point out that if other bilateral relation articles were written like this one that would be quite an improvement. Furthermore, I'm not impressed by the recurrent drive to get this article deleted. However, we do need to draw a line somwhere for the notability of bilateral relations articles, and the WikiProject International relations has drawn up some guidelines here, and this article does not come close to meeting them. Maethordaer (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There really isn't anything which this article could be expanded with. Mongolia and Croatia are two countries which barely had contact throughout history. I think previous discussions were affected by the circumstances of the article's creation (the whole Groubani affair) and the community's response (article rescuers who tried hard to salvage bilateral articles and ended up arguing for this one to prove a point). But nowadays we have WP:INTR's guidelines so we can skip the debates and check the article against the six criteria. And it fails on all counts. Timbouctou (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly passes #1 of that project guideline. Your claim is thus refuted. Warden (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's the problem with the blatant WP:SYNTH in the article - medieval Croats and Mongols of 1242 are not one and the same with the modern-day states of Croatia and Mongolia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:07, 1 September 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) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. At least now the nominator's first point won't be an issue in this AFD :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems incoherent, failing to provide any clear reason to delete and seeming mostly obsessed by previous failures to convince. The countries have had significant historical relations and this is well supported by sources here and elsewhere. Warden (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... so what is the reason to keep, then? Please explain where do you see these significant historical relations, preferably naming one example source that you see supporting them? Seriously, I fail to see a single source here or elsewhere to support your assertions. The article lists eleven Mongolian persons (in a population of over 2 million that's below 0.00055%) who did something of no general notability (schooling) in Croatia, a loan in the amount of 0,0074% of the Croatian yearly state budget (roughly 20 billion USD and a 148K USD loan) making it not only non-notable but borderline trivial, and two political events that are also of no general notability (at least they wouldn't warrant mention in any other Wikipedia article AFAICT). Where is the significance then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict) "The countries have had significant historical relations and this is well supported by sources." Um what? Apart from the brief invasion by Mongols in the 13th century (which definitely occurred but which had absolutely no impact on Croatia or its culture and/or future) the two countries had no contact to speak of for the next six centuries until the late 1990s. And then, a renaissance occurred, evidenced by a total of eleven (11) people from Mongolia who studied in Croatia and a loan which amounted to the 150,000 dollars. Yes, there had been a few routine visits by heads of state and the usual babble about "improving relations" was carried by news agencies, but did anything materialize from it? The closest thing to something resembling diplomatic relations consists of a honorary consul of Mongolia in Zagreb, a guy called Zlatko Mateša who earned that title by "travelling extensively" around Mongolia (Jutarnji.hr). On the other hand Croatia established a honorary consulate in Mongolia only some six months ago in March 2011 [28] and granted the title to one Bat-Erdene Purevdagva [29]. The two countries have never been engaged in a war, have no significant trade balance, have never been in any sort of an alliance, do not share a border, and have never been engaged in a diplomatic conflict. In the first 11 months of 2010 Croatia's import from Mongolia was worth a whopping 3,000 euros, up from 2,000 euros in the same period in 2009, while Croatian export to Mongolia was exactly zero in 2010, down from 15,000 euros in 2009[30]. Croatia's entire yearly import from Mongolia is equivalent to what four guys in Delaware spend on cigarettes. This is absurd. Timbouctou (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH which explains that this is not a helpful argument. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very link you posted and which you yourself obviously failed to read states that "Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state." What's the potential here? Timbouctou (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the subject matter is obviously not of Earth-shattering importance, (and may even raise a few eye-brows), international relations between sovereign States are notable. The article appears quite comprehensive and well-referenced. I'm not sure why it has even beem nominated (again?) Deterence ^Talk 14:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relations between sovereign states are certainly not inherently notable. Have you even read WikiProject International relations' guidelines on bilateral relations, specifically points 1 through 6 which address notability for the bilateral relational articles? Timbouctou (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a common pitfall: the article definitely appears quite comprehensive and well-referenced. But once you actually read it all and put it in context - does this constitute a coherent description of notable international relations? I contend that the answer is no, because we have equated modern-day states to Dark-Age tribal incursions and over-elaborated an assortment of fairly trivial interactions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with user Deterence, the article is comprehensive and well-referenced but with no importance whatsoever. But as user TreasuryTag noted, there are numerous sources covering this relationship directly and in detail, and some of them can be used in other articles (more important ones). --Kebeta (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From this and your recent article edit, it seems you support the idea that Mongol invasion of Europe#Invasion of the Kingdom of Croatia is relevant to the relations of Croatia and Mongolia. Can you explain why? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, my recent article edit has nothing to do with the idea that Mongol invasion of Europe#Invasion of the Kingdom of Croatia is relevant to the relations of Croatia and Mongolia. As I stated above, I think that this article doesn't have any/much real importance, but it's comprehensive. Although some biographers suggest that a Venetian explorer Marco Polo was born in the town of Korčula (Curzola), on the island of Korčula in today's Croatia. That is another 'very week' Croatia–Mongolia relation since Polo went to the Mongol court in China. Anyway, as I said above, it's a Weak Keep. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, then I'm confused, though at the same time, I feel increasingly that we're running around in circles. If a piece of content is irrelevant, it shouldn't be in an article. If an article is comprehensive about something with no importance whatsoever, it's still an article about something with no importance whatsoever, so it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Otherwise the argument is it exists, we collected a lot of data on it, so it should be kept - those are textbook arguments to avoid in deletion discussions :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It's a classic case of WP:MASK. Yes, HINA, Xinhua and Montsame News Agency are probably reliable and they do deal with the subject directly - but the fact they wrote about it alone does not lend any indication of notability as these agencies churn out items like these every day. Croatian World Network is (unlike what Wikipedia says) unrelated to EURO-World Network and is a website ran by one guy based in USA called Nenad Bach (the item cited in the article was most likely just taken from HINA) and the Business Mongolia ref is an article credited to www.croatianvillas.com. And the first three refs are both just passing mentions in books about Croatian history taken from Google Books snippets and used here as if 13th-century Mongols and Croatia have something to do with the modern countries of Croatia and Mongolia (nevermind the fact that there's not a single word of explanation as to why there's a chronological hole six centuries long). Timbouctou (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for deletion is that there has to be a single book that covers the entire topic; this is not the correct, and is in fact not the case for a very high percentage of our articles. We write our articles based on information from multiple sources. The individual events in a persons life may not be individually notable -- but the career may be, and this too is the case for most of our articles. Even when the individual events, like some of those here may be weekly notable, the overall notability of the subject may be much stronger. All news sources produce many articles every day but this does not mean we do not rely on their professional judgment about what to write the articles about. That we do, is the basis of the GNG criterion. Historical relationships are notable, and what happened 600 years ago does not lose its encyclopedic importance--though we probably could justify a separate article about Croatia-Mongolia Relations in the 13th century. anyone who argues that this had no significant effects from the invasion should do a little more reading on the overall subject. I don't quite think the current inhabitants of the country invaded have altogether forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in fact a current inhabitant of the country invaded, so I don't really appreciate the condescending tone of the final sentence... We have not forgotten, it is taught in school history classes like any other historical event of similar importance; it certainly had some repercussions at the time - see e.g. the Golden Bull of 1242. Yet, none of it has anything to do with the bilateral relations of the two countries today, because the invasion did not e.g. usher any sort of contact between the two places, good or bad. The horde came and went and that was it. The policy of WP:SYNTH clearly states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Instead, the contacts between the countries stem from the mid-20th century, when SFR Yugoslavia (and by extension SR Croatia) was part of the Non-Aligned Movement with Mongolia. To answer the other point - HINA, and probably also Montsame (can't verify that immediately because our article about them is a stub and their web site is useless), aren't actually proper sources to demonstrate notability in this case because they're state-sponsored news agencies. They do not write these stories out of pure journalistic or even commercial interest - it's literally their paid job to report on state-sponsored activities. Hence we simply cannot "rely on their professional judgment about what to write the articles about". You invoked WP:GNG - see all those guidelines about how sources need to be independent from the subject. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I didn't read any sense of condescension in the final sentence (or any other part) of DGG's comment. Deterence ^Talk 11:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a current inhabitant. The 1241-42 invasion is treated as a minor episode in Croatia's history and is given only a passing mention in local history books. They came and went and any influence the invasion might have had was indirect (the subsequent building of castles and the like). Besides, those invaders are always referred to as Tatars. Timbouctou (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an obvious connection between the Mongols and the Tatars, (the former having conquered the latter), I'm not sure that it is accurate to ascribe the identity of the 13th century invaders of Croatia as "Tatars". Surely, it was a Mongol invasion? Deterence ^Talk 15:07, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shone Hyatt[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria on WP:NMUSIC. ex. the feature in the magazine was one of sixteen artists, google news returns zero hits. Was deprod without explanation MadCow257 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 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) 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom about the poor quality of sources. There are no actual signs that the subject fulfills any of the criteria which would qualify him for a WP article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{20:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment - although the article's creator, Epproductions721 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked, they appear to have resurfaced as the WP:SPA known as Goldenboy007 (talk · contribs). — 72.75.54.231 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything to help support WP:N notability of this musician. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:46, 3 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Romig[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. While he has published several volumes, and some of them are cited in a number of places I'm not clear that's enough to establish notability. Unable to find in-depth sources about him since 2009 (quite a few passing mentions). Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete even what the article claims is his best known work gets only 5 citation hits on google scholar. there are a few more citations to this book on google books, but they're only citations, not discussions of the man nor his work, and no other mention as far as I can see. therefore fails WP:AUTHOR. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Careful with how you use Google. There are 38 citations for the short title Michigan place names. older ≠ wiser 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment oh my, right you are. sorry about that. nevertheless, my opinion is unchanged. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:31, 23 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) 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to find any notability for him. Google News Archive finds nothing. Google Scholar finds the one book, Michigan Place Names, self published, cited 38 times. Not enough to add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Fun Cells Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP per lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Google Search. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 24 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) 00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no references and and the two external links are to their home site and a Facebook page. None of the artists signed are notable and the article appears biased.Housewatcher (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable same with the signed artists. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 30 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 15. The previous AfD was no consensus, and opinion remains divided, & both views have support in policy--it is not really clear what to do about such conflicting guidelines; I doubt we'll resolve this by relisting, so I'm going for a compromise redirect; if there should be a little more material, it can be recreated. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Schley[edit]

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

Not notable. All sources are about him as a politician, but he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate for office. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been the subject of coverage in multiple independent sources and passes WP:PEOPLE. Please see the previous AfD discussion for this article's suitability under WP:PEOPLE and WP:N. Eprose819 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eprose819 (talk • contribs)
Delete None of the sources in the article cover him in any depth at all, they simply mention him in the context of reporting on an election campaign. Valenciano (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any coverage of him outside the context of the election - except for a mention in connection with a rezoning battle. He does not appear to have achieved notabity as a community activist or as a third-party candidate for congress. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 15. He got about 7% of the vote in that election. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:36, 5 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. Courcelles 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail2World[edit]

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

I can't find any significant for this email provider. Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks 3rd party sources to establish notability, and was created by an SPA 'M2W', so likely spam/promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 12:57, 30 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulous (Scientific Organization)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given for deletion: Not notable yet. The organization was founded two months ago, and it's first magaine issue hasn't even come out yet. Also, an online search reveals no significant coverage by multiple, third-party reliable sources, which is telling for an online organization. Singularity42 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article: "The first ever issue of Nebulous is widely expected to be launched on 10th September 2011" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrew Lenahan. -- 202.124.73.145 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11). No notability, does not even exist yet and already is rising meteorically... --Crusio (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is indeed nebulous. While the journal's rise may be meteoric, as things currently stand it looks like a black hole for reliable sources out there... Just organized in June 2011 — after a few years of existence the author shoud give it another go at WP. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 30 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.