Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 6

< 5 August	7 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. Courcelles 23:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaly Farraj[edit]

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

No Gnews. GHits is only social media and blogs. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources. I didn't see anything notable on Yahoo! aside from photo websites, Facebook and and beauty pageant websites. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. Repeatedly re-created article about a totally non-notable person. She's not won anything of any significance and there are no reliable sources to show otherwise. andy (talk) 14:16, 7 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 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M Partner[edit]

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

A lot of content and sources, but he still doesn't appear to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question The article is rather a mess, but this source and this one seem good sources to me, and show that he has more notability (in my eyes) than do, say, these people or these people. What kind of notability are you looking for, Joe? -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article only showed me a paragraph before a message popped up that said only registered members can view it. A paragraph plus that one article does not show Wikipedia notability in my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the second article: I believe you, but for whatever reason I see two paragraphs, without even a warning that I'll only be able to view so much until I either pay up or get locked out. As for the first, it shows that he had an entire (small) show to himself within the NPG (no minor museum), and that the NPG then bought the photos. Smells notable to me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked again and it is 2 paragraphs, but I still get that message. Anyway, I'm not going to argue my opinion about the sources anymore because I already explained myself. Joe Chill (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:ARTIST clause 4b - his 5 month exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, London.[1] I think the article needs to lose a LOT of non-independently verified information though. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Suriel1981 says. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 10 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 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rovira[edit]

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

Has not debuted in a senior team of a club and has never capped for a senior national team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played for the senior LA Galaxy team or for his senior national team, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Gets a few gnews hits, but it's pretty routine and nothing that would be considered significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not made a senior appearance, and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth caps. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:39, 8 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 Immigration to Brazil. because its useful (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Brazilian[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that's all this article offers. In fact, it offers a definition that isn't even needed. What else would Maltese Brazilian mean? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged into Immigration to Brazil, as had been proposed since 2008, and as noted on the page. Most past outcomes of this type have typically ended in merger. AfD is not a place for this. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be merged because there is nothing to merge. If you merge nothing, you then are forever bound to keep this redirect to preserve the edit history of nothing. Unless you propose putting something from this page into the Immigration to Brazil article that won't be deleted from there, don't propose a merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to merge, WP:DICDEF, infobox contains additional assertions but these are unreferenced and non-notable. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef and nothing more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brother HL-1250[edit]

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

Article was proposed for deletion, but I would like to see a proper debate on the subject first. Printersturnmeon (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:PRODUCT which states, "If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely...If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion." In this case, since there is no evidence of notability, the proposed deletion was the right way to go in my opinion. But since the article creator removed the PROD, we are at AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless notability can be shown, which I doubt. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If the printer truly is notable, please provide references that are not directly from Brother's website as notable sources. The only sources that have been provided so far were a support page on what its error LEDs mean, and a specs sheet. Neither prove notability to me. Phuzion (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ConcernedVancouverite. A general article on Brother printers may be a good idea though, along the lines of HP LaserJet 4000 series. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article does not establish notability and only contains primary source references. – Zntrip 08:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero notable links that could help this as a encylclopedic article. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per RfD for August 6, this is a persistent problem. MSJapan (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That RfD was a transient aspsect of this same article cycle; it never got deleted; it's still a problem but no evidence for "persistent". Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this is not a fit subject for an article, but do we merge or delete it? THe delete arguments are currently stronger, as the proposed merge target, Hemolytic disease of the newborn, does not mention the incident and the article does not make clear that this is even a case of hemolytic disease of the newborn. If there is a way to verifiably integrate this into the target page, it can be restored for that purpose. Sandstein 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Morgan Bush[edit]

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

Article is about a person only famous for one event, and not particularly famous at that. The year-old proposed merge has had no action and the article is an orphan. SDY (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A noble idea, but merge what where? This is an obscure event from the '60's. If the bombay phenotype still had an article it might be a one-liner there, but it's not a major event in the history of HDN (the inactive merge target). Given that it's been 44 years and the only clear reference on google is our article, mirrors of our article, and the other people who share the relatively common name. SDY (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is medical esoterica, not cause for encyclopedic biography. "Derek Morgan Bush made headlines in 1967 when his mother, June Rose Bush – a woman with an extremely rare blood type – successfully gave birth to him at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City." Carrite (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — I would suggest that a new section "Rh null phenotype" in Rh blood group system would be the appropriate merge target. The paradox is that it was the mother's rare blood type, not his. While the merger suggested Hemolytic disease of the newborn as the target, I believe that it should go to the conspicuously absent target where it can be pared down and additional sources can be added.Novangelis (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it exists as hh antigen system, which I think was renamed from Bombay phenotype (the old, somewhat politically incorrect name). Even there, though, what would we say? Other than an offhand comment that it's not actually impossible to find hh blood for transfusion, there isn't really that much to say. SDY (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rh(null) is not hh/Bombay, a breakdown the step in generating the H antigen (blood type O) in the ABO blood group. Rh null is absence of reaction to any sera to any form of RhD and RhCE antigens. This differs from Rh- in which D is absent, but CE is present.Novangelis (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, you are correct, I was in the wrong antigen system. Regardless, not sure if Mr. Bush is worth including in the article, though the null phenotype is probably worth a nod in Rh blood group system. I'm not sure how relevant he is, but if he is the beneficiary of a first case of a successful transfusion for that particular variant might be something (or some other extreme, e.g. rarest antigen matched unit ever). Apparently, reading some of the sources, he was a human interest story that got a lot of publicity, but we don't report on modern human interest stories either. At least no one will accuse us of violating WP:NOTNEWS when the story is not exactly hot off the presses... SDY (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, per WP:1E. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. Talk about a forgettable person! He was in the news for a week in 1967 [2] and was never heard of again - except for a page in a brochure glorifying the hospital. [3] Incidentally most of this article is directly lifted or closely paraphrased from that pamphlet (see the 1960-1969 page). --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete with no merge. This doesn't even meet the standard for biography. The subject is a possibly living person and the only coverage we can provide ends at one week old? This Facebook page is the slippery slope we're dealing with, especially since it's entirely possible this attorney is the supposed subject. No notability as cited, though verifiable. Mere medical trivia and a potential BLP nightmare. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator did due diligence to notify page creator of this process; the editor responded that the page was an early creation and in the page creator's opinion doesn't meet notability guidelines. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grey[edit]

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

Declined prod a month ago. Creator Mvbrotherz (talk · contribs) pulled the prod. Only major contributor to the article, which is his only contribution. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent and substantial sources either showing or available. Additionally, this seems to be a page started with vaguely promotional intent. Carrite (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. When I typed his name into Google and Yahoo, there weren't any notable or biographical links aside from a news article for another Michael Grey who was a radio personality. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any independent or substantial sources to uphold notability. RossRSmith (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete he is searchable[4] under his given and screen-credited name of Michael Yakovchik. I have added his filmology to the article and began searching for articles ABOUT him. While I can understand his Americanizing his name to Michael Grey for business reasons, no one is writing about "him" under either name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch. That should help us find some sources. Raymie (t • c) 18:15, 13 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) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BroHats.com[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability, trivial third-party coverage. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a local hat company. The information that one of its hats appeared in a photograph in a newspaper is desparate barrel-scraping. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Totnesmartin. Prioryman (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notability, media coverage in general. Google and Yahoo didn't find anything aside from the BroHats website. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 8 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 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem Orga[edit]

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

Spam-like, but somewhere close to salvageable (hence the AFD rather than speedy). Possibly redirect to Sefran, its parent company, without prejudice an article in the future. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I would say speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Since the current text needs replacement in its entirety --- Global security is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and one of the key aspects is protection of personal identities – in electronic transactions, personal data or the legally binding nature of electronically concluded business. Electronic documents like Smart Cards ensure that confidential information and biometric data are practically impossible to steal and misuse by preventing unauthorized access. That is why more and more government authorities and businesses are discovering the benefits of electronic documents.... With its e-Documents Division, Morpho is a pioneer and market leader in the field of Smart Cards and e-Documents..... Nine strategically located development centers produce a steady flow of innovations that change the world. Payment --- notability is not really an issue. Even if this were a notable product (and it doesn't sound like one) having an article under this title only misleads users and editors into believing that there is encyclopedic information here rather than puffery. It isn't clear from this advertising text whether it's about "Sagem Orga" or "Morpho", which seems to be the chief subject of the text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version is copyvio from here. However a cleaner 2010 version exists. So it doesn't qualify for G12 and possibly not G11 either. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from this one. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company is a major manufacturer of smartcards (I got to this article because I found its name when I scraped away the magnetic stripe of my canceled credit card.) Its low presence in google is due to the nature of its business. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) PS. Instead of nominating articles for deletion, please EDIT them to conform. It is less work FOR EVERYBODY. Deletionism is killing Wikipedia.[reply]

I am no deletionist. It's simply that this article is not, in my opinion, savable because Sagem Orga itself does not warrant an article. I've worked hard to save other articles before. I reject your attack on me personally. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notabilityCurb Chain (talk) 14:49, 13 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) 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Valentine[edit]

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

This person does not appear to come close to meeting any of the notability criteria at WP:ARTIST. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable films director, received a lot of bootlegging awards which are also not relevant. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although at first glance this director may not seem notable, he is relevant to pop culture, and therefore history. Even with just three films made, he has made an impact in the world of horror films. The trilogy is experimental horror made by a growing artist that will be around for some time to come. So, I believe a page for him, that can continue to grow, is suitable for wikipedia. User:AltJans67 —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC). [reply]

*Keep This director should be mentioned somewhere in wiki, his films may be stupid but I agree he has made an impact. There are sports figures on wiki with a page that played half a season for a cricket team in some random country, stuff like that, so why not some director that has made a few notable horror crapfests. User:rmartino873 20:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)— Rmartino873 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vquakr forgot to strike this one[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can not see any reason according to Wiki Specifications that this page should be removed. This person list movies currently made, a little information about the director, he is referenced in other Wiki pages, more obscure directors than he have biography on wiki. So I think they is more substantial reason to keep than to delete. Arbertie55 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)— Arbertie55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence of genuine notability, support seems to be coming only from probable socks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I struck comments by confirmed sockpuppets of Rmartino873. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 9 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 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Karrer[edit]

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

WP:N--unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this music producer. A watchlisted semi-blog, an IMDB entry, etc., exist, but nothing that I can save to the article that uncontroversial meets WP:RS, and nothign providing more than database-listing like coverage. Additional sources gratefully welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, there is not reliable third party sources which sustain the verifiability of what is written in the article, and I can't also think of a producer of soundtrack albums for movies (which are not original sound track) who are relevant and notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 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) 22:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VisualMILL-for-SolidWorks[edit]

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

This source is good, but it still doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable software from a non notable software development company, preliminary research suffices this fact. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, plus we already have the article VisualMILL, where we can mention there is a version for solidworks.--Jordiferrer (talk) 08:08, 9 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 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RhinoCAM[edit]

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

This source is good, but it still doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems that the company which created this software creates those articles, as a way to enhance their visibility, as the creator of this page and VisualMILL-for-SolidWorks basically used the same text body and MecSoft major developer's nickname is also Trojan65, as of his contact details as shown in [5] website. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party sources, as I didn't find any on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 8 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. I'm discounting the delete opinions by Malik Shabazz and Sreifa (WP:PERNOM) and Gelobet sei (opinion does not make much sense) as well as the keep opinion by CarolMooreDC (WP:WAX). Among the other contributors, the principal argument for deletion is not that the list is a POV fork (of what? as many point out) but, as many others note, that it is unsourced, which is contrary to our core policy WP:V because it does not let readers determine whether any of the listed organizations is indeed a "Palestinian solidarity organization" as described in the lead (although for most that's pretty clear from the name); or whether the very concept of "Palestinian solidarity" organizations - note the red link - in the way it is defined by the lead is our own invention (WP:NOR) or is based on reliable sources. Because the minority of remaining "keep" opinions does not address this core problem, but rather makes arguments in the vein of WP:ITSUSEFUL, I find that there is a consensus to delete this list in this form. It can be recreated if the scope-defining concept of "Palestinian solidarity organization" and the list itself is reliably sourced. Sandstein 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian solidarity organizations[edit]

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

Many of those organizations are not even Palestinian solidarity organizations (such as B'Tselem). It seems to be a catch-all for any organization that even casually criticizes Israel or its policies. This is a POV fork. GHcool (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced wiki-taxonomy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List without scientific and encyclopedic imprint, also the data coined from this list was obtained within Wikipedia, which requires a external source to sustain its relevance and notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a good list, in that the inclusion criteria is clearly defined, it is finite, it has a logical connection, and it serves a valid useful function as a navigational device. This is gonna be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT extravaganza, as is true with virtually everything dealing with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian civil war . Still, if this were something like List of French animal welfare organizations or List of Scottish historical societies, I don't think anyone would batt an eye, let alone haul the thing to AfD for annihilation. Look at the structure and function here. i think it passes our usual inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if Wikipedia can have an articles called List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which lists the following articles: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011, (not to mention List of Palestinian suicide attacks), without anyone declaring POV fork, it can have one on Palestinian Solidarity groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not see the relationship between rocket attacks on Israel and a synthesized collection of "solidarity" movements and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  Comment Note there is an article called: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. So creating an article about lists and then the lists themselves is like a double fork, if it be a fork. At Wikimania 2011 Jimmy Wales said about "Topics relating to Israel and Palestine": they're in the group of articles that are always heavily edited, heavily discussed, heavily debated,” says Wales. “They get a lot of attention from a lot of different people, and of course it will happen every day that someone will come in with an agenda, in any direction, trying to push that agenda, but the community is quite vigilant about trying to be neutral, trying to follow reliable sources, and I think in general we succeed... About the 2010 effort by the right-wing group Israel Sheli (My Israel) to insert "Zionist" editing into Wikipedia he says: Yet while the campaign featured heavily in the press, with the group issuing open calls for seminars on how to proceed, Wales says the battle seemed to have been in vain. I feel any deletion of this article would dramatically disprove his point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Off-topic. What you say has nothing to do with this article. The list articles you cite are supported by multiple-reliable sources, this list article is not supported by a single RS. A collection of so-called "solidarity" movements, many of which aren't entirely exclusive to Palestine, doesn't belong on wikipedia. There is no list article of Israeli solidarity activist organizations. Wikifan^{Be nice} 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment - I disagree Carol. It think deleting it would prove that when people create articles like this that are within scope of the discretionary sanctions and they don't do it in a way that complies with policy and the sanctions i.e. "the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies" to quote Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, the article will be deleted. It probably is possible for someone to create a properly referenced list of organizations that self-identify as Palestinian solidarity organizations from scratch so an article like this could be reduced to a stub but I think giving articles like this a pass in the topic area without any evidence that they will be fixed any decade now is inconsistent with the sanctions and sends the wrong message. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment Well, it did occur to me in this case I didn't have energy to beef up the article properly myself. It's just that I have some vague memory of a similar article (not a list) with sufficient WP:RS being deleted in the past. But maybe I'm wrong. So one more thing to put on my To Do list! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:ITHINK, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:LIKE are non-factual/invalid arguments to prevent article's deletion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist also must be deleted under these various rationales. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or turn into a category (there is no currently existing category on this topic). Topic is useful and defining. Organizations that don't belong here should be removed - that's not a problem that should be solved by deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the listed organizations are not particularly notable. Not a single reference in the article. IMO many of the organizations in the article should be put up for deletion as well, like Women for Palestine. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "POV fork" has to be a fork of something; what is this a fork of? It seems to be a pretty harmless article that serves a useful purpose. However, it needs to be sourced. Zero^talk 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested this article is causing harm. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced wiki-taxonomy. --Kylfingers (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a "POV fork" as described under Content_forking#POV_forks. The minimal text complies with teh advice there: "regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." "Palestinian solidarity" is notable and discussed in various places. Otherwise, I cannot understand the relation of the arguments for deletion to any agreed deletion criteria.--Carwil (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some lists such as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel group certain articles by obvious characterizations. However, grouping this set of organizations and calling them "Palestinian solidarity organizations" constitutes original synthesis, which is something we have to be careful about. IMO, this broadly termed category fullfils what the list sets out to do. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—unsourced list of loosely related organizations. There are no clear criteria for inclusion in the list, and therefore it is inherently WP:OR. It is also unclear what the minimum notability requirement for the list is. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It is original research to bunch these distinct organizations, each having a separate agenda, as having a single goal. Could be kept only if a reliable sources are provided to back this categorization. Even then, it would probably be more useful, and easier to maintain, as a category. Marokwitz (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable list of Non-Notable organizations. --Gelobet sei (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? Most of these are bluelinks. If you think the organizations lack coverage in reliable sources, feel free to nominate them for deletion individually, but "It's just not notable," without any sort of argument or evidence, is unlikely to be weighed too heavily as an argument for deletion. Do try to come up with an actual rationale, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per GHcool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreifa (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 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FXLabs[edit]

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

Besides being filled with extremely outdated content, it has serious notability issues. Also, this company does not even exist anymore. Postwar (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company does not exist anymore, and does not have enough background and media impact to be featured within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems not to have made any notable impact, even with film tie-in Dhoom 2.5, which the internet mentions several times as being in development in 2008, but is silent on any actual release. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 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 (withdrawn by proposer). Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 18:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (UK universities)[edit]

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

To me the basis of this page seems to be almost entirely original research. On the talk page there are seven separate discussions regarding which institutions should be included in the "Golden Triangle". This shows there is no reliable definition of the phrase. Whilst the phrase is mentioned in a few sources, it is used only casually. Mentions I have found always say "sometimes referred to as" - it's really not something worth having a page on Wikipedia for. It is not like the Russell Group or million+ that are formal coalitions. I don't think this original research belongs on Wikipedia. Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - how frustrating, yet another time wasting AfD. This article has been in place since 2006 and is on a highly notable topic, the time spent on this AfD would be much better spent on improving articles. The fact that there may have been different definitions of the concept given in no way means that the topic is not notable, and the core definition is in any case undisputed - Cambridge, London and Oxford. Yes differences as to whether Kings College London is a part of the Golden Triangle should be mentioned in the text if not already but articles should not be brought to AfD just because they need work.

The high notablity of this concept is proven not just by the very large amount of coverage in third party sources - admittedly not many are actually included in the article at present, but a few seconds on Google reveals a great many - but also the fact that the Korean, Chinese, Russian, Finnish and Italian Wikipedias all have articles on this topic. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:24, 6 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 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VisualMILL[edit]

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

The prod was contested in November 2010. Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just commented on the this company's other product, RhinoCAM and I said delete because it's the same thing here: No third-party sources have been found. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 8 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MecSoft Corporation[edit]

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

This software company is non-notable same with their software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actual notability is unknown, but there is absolutely zero indication or even a hint of it in the article. Not even claims of anything notability related in the text. Text is just advertising material, and the only references given are their press releases. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Preliminary research does not provide enough context that would enhance its notability factor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been saying "delete" on this company's products, because all of them haven't achieved media coverage or notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 1st party references and does not indicate notabilityCurb Chain (talk) 14:41, 13 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomat Navigator[edit]

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

i am unable to find anything that shows this software's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced; no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any good sources on both Google and Yahoo that could support a biography about the company aside from this PRNews mention. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 14:39, 13 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. No prejudice to creating a redirect in place of the article if an appropriate target can be found. Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Boudjenane[edit]

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

This person has been a candidate in a couple of elections but never elected. Remaining article not notable enough to stand on its own. Recommend delete or Redirect to one of the candidate pages. Suttungr (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet notability standards, particularly Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. PK T(alk) 19:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even his ten years as a reporter at a small TV station doesn't confer notability - TFO's article fails to mention him, as do articles on TFO's programs. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a provincewide public television service, not a "small TV station". But that's secondary. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only links I could find on both Yahoo! and Google were Facebook and Linkedin. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the past, losing candidates for political office have almost always been deleted, unless, like Lenora Fulani, they can claim some ongoing notoriety as a political party leader. 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have no opinion one way or the other on the keep/delete question, but I do feel I should point out that having been executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, rather than his electoral candidacy or his work with TFO, is actually the primary claim that may or may not get him over the notability hump — depending, of course, on how well we can or can't source it. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 10 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irbcam[edit]

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

I can't find anything that shows this software's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any sources, media coverage in general. I didn't see anything on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 14:37, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Cimirotič[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Claimed to have played at a notable level, but no evidence of that has been provided. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no verifiable claims to notability. Giant Snowman 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability; a Google search found nothing saying anything other than that he was on one or more teams. The given source doesn't even try to establish notability; it appears to indicate that during his time on Slovenia's Prva Liga, he didn't play at all. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated, the source confirms that he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to met WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person has apparently made zero appearances in the top level of Slovenian football and there is no evidence that it satisfies any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 19:13, 11 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. Gopalakrishnan[edit]

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

Was unable to find reliable, secondary sources on this poet/literary researcher that provide in-depth coverage to evidence notability under WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. Not to be confused with the semiconductor researcher [6] or the CEO [7], or the astrologer [8], each of whom nets significantly more coverage. Due to potential lack of coverage in on-line sources and due to the name confusion, it's certainly possible something has been missed, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. After filtering out his various namesakes, I found a few brief mentions in GBooks, but that's about it. No sources to show notability under either of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 14:34, 13 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: A9 as article on band has been speedy deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Moon (song)[edit]

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

Not notable, clear slef-promotion; the article about the band itself is AfD -- Prokurator11 (talk) 15:35, 6 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Rossikova[edit]

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

Self-promotion, evidently an autobiography; not notable -- Prokurator11 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

Delete, no evidence of notability as an academic or creative professional. Probably A7able, as the article on the band she is in has been A7ed, but deferring to another admin. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not an A7 because there are quite a few claims, but fails the reliable source test. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. This article also is in AfD at eswiki and ruwiki. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] \\ 7 August, 2011 [07:21]
Strong delete per lack of any notable sources on Google and Yahoo that would be appropriate for a biography. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 11 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: A7 as tagged by User:TenPoundHammer. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eustachian tube (band)[edit]

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

not notable and poorly referenced Suraj T 12:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear self-promotion. AfD at ru-wiki too. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nowhere near the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

Delete Non-notable Myspace/Facebook band. Lugnuts (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A7 why was this not speedied? They have one single and no assertation whatsoever of anything resembling notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:26, 6 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Cyber[edit]

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

Delete. Spam for non-notable software which does not meet the general notability guideline and fails WP:PRODUCT. Only the background section, which does not deal with the product itself, is cited. No third-party citations are provided for the product itself. Article appears to have been created by the product developer, as Cdccyber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs himself as "Tom" (see this diff). Same editor has been repeatedly inserting links to product Subversion repository despite being warned of the conflict of interest. See also Wikipedia:COIN#Desktop_CYBER. Yworo (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Yworo (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find that anything that shows notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional; no actual reliable sources for any supposed notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability left after editing by Yworo, Orangemike. The article has been sufficiently crippled that it no longer has any value. The link to the GPL sources of the emulator and the link to the Usenet article announcing the release have been repeatedly removed. This article describes only an emulator of the first supercomputer developed by Seymour Cray. It fails on the following criteria: it provides no significant coverage; is not reliable as the original author has a conflict of interest and is obviously not independent of the subject; the article is self promoting and has no verifiable content. Cdccyber (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is noted, but useless here. Wouldn't that energy have been better put to use developing the article to demonstrate notability, instead of mocking those who pointed out its lack? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product doesn't seem to have achieved media notability, as I didn't find any good sources on both Yahoo! and Google searches. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not-Delete. This article is about public domain software that serves a public purpose by preserving computer history by making an emulator available for a computer line that was playing a significant role in the area of scientific computing in the 70s to 80s. For details see CDC Cyber. --Philippschaumann (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed the notability issue, which requires reliable sources. Please read our general notability guideline and discuss how the sources satisfy it. For example, reviews in related trade journals? This is not a general discussion of the merit of the subject, but rather a discussion of how it does or does not meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. !votes which do not address the issue of the sourcing required to meet our notability standards are generally not considered. See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. Also, it's not public domain software, it 'licensed under the GPL, which is different, and is also a commercial product that the vendor charges $12,500 for! Yworo (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the references in the article that discuss the subject itself at any length are reliable, they are all self-published sources. That's not even close to establishing notability. -- Atama頭 16:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and also promotional given the clear conflict of interest. Perhaps a couple of lines could be added to CDC Cyber, but there isn't much worth keeping here. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious WP:SPAM. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability established with reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, No article - it's that simple. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. COI problems as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Now or Usefy for development I got 14,000+ hits on Google for DTCyber, it appears that it is likely to have actual notability. The main editor is very innexperienced WP editor (a lifetime 79 edits) and so are probably not any good at establishing wp:notability from rw:notability. So the lack of such here is probably not an indication of potential wp:notability. Plus, for me it always raises concern when another editor is deleting references during the brief AFD commentary period - where's the rush? North8000 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the first five pages and it's all user generated comment and mailing lists - nothing useful for our purposes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Keep in mind WP:GHITS. You wouldn't have found any reliable, third-party extensive coverage of the product in any of those 14,000+ hits did you? If so I might be persuaded to change my mind. -- Atama頭 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that deep in. I was just trying to get a quick feel of the likelihood of rw:notability which generally means establish-ability of wp:notability. I'll take a bit more of a look. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through about 10 pages of google hits on CDCyber and amazon.com. Didn't see any third party books on it. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence in checking. I did a similar search and didn't come up with anything, but I've missed things before at AfD discussions (especially for software for some reason) so I'm always happy to see other eyes on it. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've written a lot of print articles on IT topics, but cannot find anything that remotely considers this to be notable. Maybe someday, but not now. This is exactly the argument about COI - we *know* that it's important/notable to the product owner, that does not make it notable for an encylopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Semkin[edit]

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

Not notable barely any coverage, all a google search brings up are her social networking profiles.A smattering of mentions in smaller regional papers and little recently. Also as seen here the article seems to have been created as little more than an advert for the subject. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some background: This piece was started in 2009 by someone close to the subject who was pretty clearly not familiar with writing for WP with respect to sourcing rules or style. For whatever reason it made it through the front gate before recently being stubbed out as a copy vio of the subject's website. There was an attempt to speedy the stub, which was declined, and then the stub was taken to AfD. No opinion as to notability at this moment, searching... Carrite (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-claim of pioneering the breed internationally: In addition to sending the first longhorns to Africa, it is claimed, "Charlene also introduced the first Texas Longhorns to New Zealand, Australia, and Venezuela." There's a claim to notability to be made here. Completely unsourced, obviously... Carrite (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is the recipient of the FIRST PRESIDENTIAL AWARD of the Texas Longhorn Breeders Association of America, whatever that is... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not finding independent coverage of the individual. She's clearly a notable figure in the world of longhorn breeding, but this is not Cattlepedia. Fails the WP General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:PEOPLE. The fact that her receipt of a Presidential Award was the last item mentioned in the news story does not give me confidence that this was in fact a hugely noteworthy event. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources were found on Yahoo either. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Unless we want an article on every animal breeding farm on the planet, this one fails. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkableCurb Chain (talk) 14:27, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Giorgino[edit]

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

Reason Prof.derpington (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Specifically, as per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), none of the criteria seem to be satisfied. Lastly, cited references can not be retrieved in the English language.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal citability in GScholar, WebOfScience and Scopus; does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF on any other grounds. Note however, that sources need not be available in English for establishing notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h index of 3 fails WP:Prof#C1 conclusively. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No sources were found on both Google and Yahoo that could help the article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 8 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QC tonic wine[edit]

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

No sources. Kelly ^hi! 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-stated as being a brand, with no sources = no indication of wp: notability North8000 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage by reliable sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 14:24, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct Cricket[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Their only "claim to fame" -- being the "kit supplier to " an international cricket star -- is not noted in any independent sources (although it is much touted by the company themselves on any and every forum they can find). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Second what WikiDan61 said, plus there are zero references = no indicaiotn of wp:notability, and such looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article just seems to be an advertisement. JH (talk page) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising, with no independent, reliable sources to show notability. Palltrast (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability and written like an advert. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ignorant Armies^?! 10:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional only. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like the claims are hoax, seeing that it is not found anywhere outside of fora.Curb Chain (talk) 14:22, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eturn[edit]

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

Contested prod. Trademark with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of wp:notabiliity, zero references. As a sidebar, article has no real content. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as North8000. Prioryman (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No links were found on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 9 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F1 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS, not a fully professional event Mayumashu (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 7 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F2 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS, not a fully professional tournament Mayumashu (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 7 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F3 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS, not a fully professional tournament Mayumashu (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 7 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F4 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS implicitly - not a fully professional tournament Mayumashu (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F5 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS, not a fully professional tournament Mayumashu (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 7 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 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile F6 Futures[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS, not a fully professional tourney Mayumashu (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Bertram[edit]

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

not notable and very poorly referenced Suraj T 12:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she is noteworthy enough for wikipedia! Article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.122.245 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — 2.98.122.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Esther Bertram is an Independent artist with vast experience performing throughout Australia and Europe in a wide array of styles and with noteworthy collaborators. She has a large following of devoted listeners, particularly from her time as the voice of German world music group Dissidenton, and, with Half a dozen fine albums to her credit, has done more than enough to warrant a place on Wiki. Page does need referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.134.251 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — 1.42.134.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions aside from third-party sources and other trivial websites such as music downloads. I didn't see anything that could help the article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO (doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria), WP:RS and WP:INDY (no independent reliable sources, and couldn't find any via a Google search), and WP:PEOPLE (no indication of general notability). Having a lengthy and varied career is not what makes someone "notable"; that has to be substantiated by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and there isn't any sign of this here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references link to german home pages. Although they are german, I highly doubt those the information referenced are on those (home)pages.Curb Chain (talk) 14:17, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaclemys terrapin maximus[edit]

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

This turtle subspecies is not in the December 2010 IUCN turtle checklist or in the extensive synonyms list(2007) and extant turtles would be in one or the other somewhere. The claim of discovery attributed to Jonathan Tucker (scientist) does not show in his bio, nothing in Google scholar. Appears to be mistake, myth or hoax. The two refs in the article at present refer only to the species or the genius and make no reference to this subspecies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax per the excellent reasoning in the nomination and the views of two participants at WikiProject Turtles.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find any reliable sources discussing this supposed subspecies. Deor (talk) 21:15, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrod[edit]

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

non notable and provides no useful content Suraj T 12:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's a village. Likely to meet wp:notability, even if not established. Has at leas some content, wp is full of village articles that have zero. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Non-notable" and "no useful content" are pretty much inapplicable complaints with respect to articles on villages, which are presumed notable if they exist. I've been playing with Google Earth to confirm there is such a place and have come up with a hit for Barrod, Rajasthan, India, which seems to be a different place. Can anyone confirm existence? Carrite (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the alternate spelling given in the article (Bardod) it exists, is on the map, and the location on the map jives with some of the other details given. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North8000. Change the name as soon as this snows shut and be sure to get the country in there somewhere. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Creeping Fog[edit]

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

Notability is not clear. No Independent source. The only external link is the site of the associated production. Looks like self-publicity/advertising/self-published material by the subject - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. Does not even claim anything notability related. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY (no independent reliable sources — all I could find in a Google search were sources closely linked to the subject, including promotional / retail sites). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notabilityCurb Chain (talk) 14:14, 13 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 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Mask[edit]

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

Notability is not clear. No Independent source. The only external link is the site of the associated production. Looks like self-publicity/advertising/self-published material by the subject - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, = no indication of wp:notability. Does not even claim anything notability related. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established/no indication of notabilityCurb Chain (talk) 14:12, 13 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. Consensus is that this is a routine news story, which we do not cover as an article unless it generates really lasting coverage. Sandstein 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Helensburgh fire[edit]

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

House fire being treated as murder. These occur often enough to be non-notable unless there are special circumstances. No such circumstances are cited here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three deaths in an apparent murder in a house fire isn't that common, thank goodness. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as patgallacher says thee deaths in an housefire and supposed murder.. not that usual. I say keep for now and re-evaluate when some time has flown by.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but consider recreating in Wikinews. Sad event, but nowhere near the level of coverage needed in WP:EVENT. If the media coverage persists, the article can be restored, but we don't normally keep articles on news events simply because they might become notable later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that it is notable now... but I dont have a magic ball so cant say anything about the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. As far as Wikipedia's notability standards are concerned, a news event is notable either permanently or not at all. News events are very rarely notable on a the basis on a day or two's news coverage (and certainly not when it's only coverage in local papers). Where news events are considered notable within a day or two of its occurrence, it is normally because the event is of such monumental significance that it is clear that it will continue to have enduring coverage long after the event. In this case, we don't know whether the news event will have lasting coverage, and if we don't know, the event is not considered notable until and if it meets this notability threshold. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask again, what is the harm in not deleting this article and assume good faith when users want it to stay.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that, in every deletion discussion where someone disagrees with established precedent, it always comes down to "what's the harm in keeping it?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic, yes. But we don't have articles on every crime committed at every scale. 3 deaths is indeed horrific, but that does not give this automatic notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So at which death rate is a subject notable? is 3 deaths less notable than 5.. is 100 less notable than a 1000 is 1000 less notable than 3000 etc etc??.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no perfect line. But have you noticed that wikipedia doesn't have any entry for every time someone, or even 3 or 4 people get killed. These do get coverage...murders always do. But there's a reason why we have WP:EVENT!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? explain..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Naomib1996 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? explain...--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No one saying delete has given a good enough reason yet in my opinion. I would like to sum it up as for now it has sufficient sourcing, it is notable per high amount of media coverage with reliable sourcing. In case that its not notable in 6months which I doubt lets return with a new AfD then. Its way to early and becomes crystal ball thinking if we should go into speculations about future non-notability or notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT!!!!!!!!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTEMP. If it's unclear whether a news event will be notable in the future then it is not notable now (at least not for Wikipedia - Wikinews may be a different matter). That is a long-established precedent which is highly unlikely to change. It's all very well saying "it doesn't do any harm" until you consider the finite pool of volunteers who monitor articles once they've been created. It is not possible to supervise articles on every news story in every single paper in the world, and unsupervised articles become targets for subsequent conjecture and misinformation. That's why news stories need to be something more than a couple of days' attention in the local papers, otherwise it would be unmanageable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This tragedy deserves the news coverage it is receiving in the press, but since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this doesn't belong here. Try Wikinews. Fails WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shael Riley[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this bio. says he is best known for a single remix on one website OverClocked ReMix. nothing satisfying wp:music. none of the sources provided are independent and reliable, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. album not on important label. last afd closed no consensus due to lack of participation, no credible !votes after nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Almost all of the references are "fake".Curb Chain (talk) 14:10, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deliver Us From Evil (Espion Series)[edit]

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

Article, by its author, about a book available only as an e-book. Searches find a good many books with this title, but no indication that this one meets the standard of WP:Notability (books). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. If there was an appropriate speedy for books this would apply. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as the others. And why don't we have something like an A9 criteria for books, like we do for recordings? MikeWazowski (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single referenceCurb Chain (talk) 14:05, 13 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 01:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Royal Moroccan Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash[edit]

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

I find it questionable that this event is worth of an encyclopedia article. The references provided are about all there is out there and the type is endemic of WP:NOTNEWS. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deadliest crash in 2011, thus notable enough.--93.137.138.112 (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question have you seen how much lower casualty events are listed all over the years, going around WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--93.137.138.112 (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:AIRCRASH, which may not be a policy on its own but cites three. Multiple reliable sources are available (passes WP:GNG) as well as coverage in a wide scope of sources with possible lasting effects (which takes care of WP:EVENT and WP:NEWS). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant accident. The large number of deaths gives weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable non-combat fatal loss of a large transport aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any accident with 78 fatalities is notable by any standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS is to prevent articles of topics that are considered "routine" news items. This aircrash is not anything like routine. --Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; passes the GNG by far. I think NOTNEWS may have been misapplied here. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadliest accident in 2011 so far with 78 fatalities is notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 17:26, 11 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 snow keep. Jayron32 01:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NATO helicopter crash[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS and general lack of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I'm sure it will grow, but block Eugen Simion for creating such bullshit articles--93.137.138.112 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

umm, youre likely to be blcoked for NPA instead of content discussionsLihaas (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, i'm not--93.137.101.250 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to being notable. And yes, the user has a history of creating non-notable articles. I see at least 30 successful AfDs on his talk page. Jim Sukwutput 09:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of some of the new information that has come out, I think this deserves a merge. Preferably with the List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan. And with the article on American casualties in the war, of course. Jim Sukwutput 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this is notable, the article is just extremely poorly written and needs a total rewrite.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it's "of course" notable... it is poorly written yes, but also it's a topic of transient interest and its well covered in the articles that deal with this... in and of itself it's not a notable topic for inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? If you think it is covered elsewhere then why aren't you suggesting a redirect instead of deletion? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. It is perfectly legitimate for the U.S. media to spend a disproportionate amount of attention on U.S. casualties rather than deaths of thousands of people around the world every day if that is what they care about. It is not legitimate for Wikipedia to engage in the same kind of bullshit in which one human life is worth more than another simply because of his nationality. If 30 casualties is worth an article, then we need at least 30,000 articles for the Iraq War, 50,000 for the Vietnam war, and maybe a million for WWII. Jim Sukwutput 11:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS seeks to preclude "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which this clearly isn't. It also states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As this is the biggest single loss of life incident for US forces in ten years of war, I think it's enduring notability is readily apparent even at this early stage. The absolute number of deaths is not relevant. If you want to counter systemic bias, create some articles about the greatest single loss-of-life events in other countries' wars.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that people didn't die at the same time in large numbers previously make this incident any more tragic? If not, I do not see the significance of the fact that it's a "ten year record". Tragedies are tragedies, and breaking a record for a time period does not make them any better or worse. Incidents like this should be evaluated on the number of deaths they've caused, and in this case that is pretty damn low for a war. This represents about 0.2% of the coalition deaths that have occurred in this war. And, if I'm allowed to include deaths of civilians, that makes it about 0.05%.

And, you missed my point about bias completely. If I were to create an article about every 30 deaths that occur in a war, I would have to create a million such articles for WWII. I don't think anybody would find that feasible. Jim Sukwutput 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't determine notability by number of deaths. Should we delete Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre because a hundred times more were killed in the Dersim Massacre? Notability is about significance in the context of related events, not absolute number of deaths--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in both cases you have a very large number of deaths and a very significant reaction. This, on the other hand, has no demonstrated notability yet. It has been covered in the U.S. media just as any other deaths of half a dozen American soldiers have been (and of course the Afghan deaths are mentioned at the end of every article). If the number of casualties is not how you measure the significance at this stage, then I'm not sure how you would do it. Do we know everything else beyond the number of casualties? We don't even know who carried out the attack at this point.

Just to build on my previous points, let me note that U.S. casualties in this war overall represent less than 15% of the coalition casualties and much less than that for overall casualties. They also have less than 25% of the troops in the coalition. If we were to create an article simply because it's a record for U.S. casualties, do we do that for records of British casualties as well? Canadian casualties? Civilian casualties? Records are not by themselves notable. You need the context, and the context we have here is an extraordinarily safe war (for American troops) with few casualties overall and even fewer casualties for American troops.Jim Sukwutput 12:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT, this appears to have very little chance of making such a significant impact that it would warrant an article. Agree that something needs to be done wrt Eugen's repeated creations of marginally-notable articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, after reviewing the sources, keep. Largest loss of life for the US military in Afghanistan in a single event? I'd say that's probably notable as an event. Sure, Wikipedia is not the news, but it's probably a crash that will be investigated thoroughly, and it does now have lasting impact as the single largest accident since the Afghan War started. Still maintain the same opinion on Eugen, though. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Largest accident/incident for U.S. troops. At present, the U.S. is a minor participant in a minor war. Jim Sukwutput 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Please read War in Afghanistan (2001–present), which shows the US with 90,000 troops still there. The war is one of the longest post-WW2. Not so minor a participation, not so minor a war. Edison (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this event is non-notable, what about 2011 Brazilian Air Force Cessna 208B Grand Caravan Crash? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has failed to disclose that he is the article's creator. Jim Sukwutput 11:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Damn, I was already busy creating the same article. link. This event is notable because it is the largest loss of life for NATO/US military since the war began ten years ago. OTHERCRAPEXISTS/NOTNEWS fails in this case because the incident is unique compared to other crashes. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large amount of lost lives for NATO/USA military.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete one incident in a 10-year war. we dont have incidents for civilian bombings/drone attacks that kill 50+ people (or the german bobming that killed 100) making this clearly POV because americans happened to have died. at any rate despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS invalidating this arguement: WP already has loads of nonsensical/sensationalist stubs for current events with no further improvement making it WP:Recentism. This 3-line article can go on the afghan war page under casualties or something or on the list of such incidents for the year (where i just added it)

And on the topic aboved of notability: where is the article for the soviet deaths in a single day? the civilian deaths as i mentioned aobve. which were far more notable in their repercussions and resignations in geramny sparkign a debate of its new found guide to war after a 60-year lullLihaas (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:AIRCRASH, which may not be a policy on its own but cites three. Multiple reliable sources are available (passes WP:GNG) as well as coverage in a wide scope of sources with possible lasting effects (which takes care of WP:EVENT and WP:NEWS). This being the largest number of deaths in the War in Afghanistan in a single incident just reinforces the notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me for my hounding, but I would like to correct some persistent misinformation here. This is not the largest number of deaths in the War in Afghanistan. This is claimed to be the largest number of deaths in a single incident, and involving U.S. troops, after the initial invasion was over. U.S. forces number less than 25% of coalition forces, and there have been many much, much larger incidents that did not involve U.S. forces.
- I would also like to note that this is breaking news and we should not be looking toward regular guidelines for whether to keep or delete this article. The correct policy is this, which I think the article fairly obviously does not meet. Jim Sukwutput 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, ~~you yourself have~~ Shadowjam has violated this guideline. It says:

"it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary

Naturally, we will reach a concensus while the AFD runs. However, if nomination had been delayed a bit the AFD may not have been necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "recommended" clause is there for a reason. Some articles clearly do not make the cut, and this is one of them. I wouldn't have nominated the article myself, but I see no problem that another user did so. Jim Sukwutput 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline here. Whether or not the article meets that guideline is dependant upon whether or not the aircraft was shot down, or crashed for reasons unrelated to combat. Just because the Taliban claimed the have shot the aircraft down doesn't necessarily mean that they did. If it was an accident, then we should keep the article; if it was a combat loss, then all three criteria mentioned under AIRCRASH would need to be met before the article could be kept. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we do not usually create articles a few hours after an incident happens, unless that incident is extremely, extremely significant. There is no way to gauge its notability when all you have is an unofficial report. WP:BREAKING specifically states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." Jim Sukwutput 13:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the creation immediately the accident has happened. Get the info whilst it's fresh, build it as the sources report new developments. If this does turn out to be an accident, then I will be voting "keep". If a combat loss, it's harder to justify, but not something I'd totally rule out as of now. Things should become clear in a few hours or days. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above arguments, in particular WP:AIRCRASH. GreyHood ^Talk 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment on another person's vote, I swear, but I need to point out the obvious misreading here (which applies also to two of the users above). WP:AIRCRASH is an essay suggesting some necessary conditions for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article. It says nothing about existence of a stand-alone article, except this last part: "...it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." In other words, it can exist as a stand-alone article if it meets all the usual guidelines. It doesn't. Jim Sukwutput 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to prove at the moment it was brought down by enemy action so its an accident, helicopters crash all the time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Shot down" means it was NOT AN ACCIDENT. Edison (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Trout to the creator. This is premature article. Right now I can quote WP:RS (primo news sources, one of which is the BBC) for casualty figures of 31, 37 & 38. We are not a news site, we have no need to create articles on events like this so precipitously, especially when this then compromises article accuracy or reliability. When we actually know anything about the event, with any useful certainty, then it's time to create the article.

As it has now been created, I wouldn't seek to delete it though, mostly because it would probably just be re-created forthwith. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; at this time this only has 469 google hits, none of them from reliable sources, so WP:GNG applies over all else. However, it maybe too soon to tell whether it has any independent notability for being a single event.
Furthermore, the event is not a notable battle or engagement, as far as we are aware at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing "2011" and setting to search for articles from just the past 24 hours returns 79,000 hits for me. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the article as it stands is beyond the GNG threshold, but not by a large margin. I'm sympathetic to NOTNEWS arguments but if the subject concerned has substantial notability (and it's reasonable to expect further coverage of this by third parties, including from other viewpoints) then a strict line on NOTNEWS only serves to keep wikipedia a couple of months out of date, which undermines one of its greatest strengths. I think that the article was prematurely created - there's very little detail which is agreed by all sources - but since it's here, I think the best option is to let it grow. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough general coverage for notability. And a dog! AND A DOG!! Oh the humanity! Lugnuts (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not humanity obviouslyLihaas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as the deadliest Coalition air incident in the entire war. The recent events like this usually gain a wide coverage and more reliable sources will be available soon. Brandmeister t 16:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete combat losses are not notable just NEWS and a bit of recentism, unfortunately its something military aircraft do in combat operations. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an AfD, where we discuss the potential deletion of articles. This is not the place to suggest blocking, warning, notifying or sanctioning any user (in this case Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs)) with regards to an article they have created or edited. Please focus on the content of the article rather than discussing a user involved. wacky wace 16:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced quote: "The deaths represent the greatest loss of military lives in a single incident since the war began in 2001." The end. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

umm, we dont vote count, if yu dont hae a reason then its not valid.Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, that seems pretty god damned straightforward to me. Slam dunk keep, the end, buh-bye, break out the trout... But, I guess that's not self-evident to all, so I will talk slowly... This is the subject of multiple, independent, substantial published reports in independent and trustworthy media outlets. Everybody agrees on that. The one and only question here is whether the principle of WP:NOTNEWS applies, to wit: is this massively covered event a simple news event or notable in and of itself as something of historic importance? This is, as I have quoted, sourced to be THE GREATEST LOSS OF MILITARY LIVES IN A SINGLE INCIDENT SINCE THE WAR BEGAN. That makes it historic. This is not your run of the mill, "Helicopter crashes, five troops killed" news stories, this is THE SINGLE GREATEST LOSS OF MILITARY LIVES IN A SINGLE INCIDENT SINCE THE WAR BEGAN. WP:N is no problem. WP:GNG is obviously fulfilled... Now break out the god damned trout... Carrite (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere sensible and transwiki content to the proper place at Wikinews. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "greatest loss of lives" statement is more than sufficiently well-documented to demonstrate the underlying notability of the event. WP:NOTNEWS does not imply that being the subject of current news coverage counts against notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -Not just a standard Afghanistan casualty. a very notable crash in the war on terror, especially since over 20 of the team were involved in the killing of Osama Bin Liner....♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now If content in this article does not grow in a few days a merge to List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan should do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While I can certainly fling around policy quotations like everyone else, this is simply a matter of common sense. If a policy somewhere prohibits an article on largest single loss of lives in this entire, decade-long war, we need to ignore or reconsider that policy in this situation. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:NOTNEWS does not require deleting the top story in a news cycle. Sometimes "news" is historic. Bring the largest loss of NATO forces in a single action in this long-running war, the largest loss of Seals or US special operations fighters in one action, or the greatest total loss of life of coalition forces would give the eveng enduring importance. If this were merely a charter flight which crashed and killed the same number of people somewhere in peacetime, it would be kept. Edison (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this notable for me from the usual military mishap is the fact that most of the team involved in Bin Laden's assassination were killed in it, probably as an intended revenge attack, so it thus becomes a major event in the war on terror and with the Taliban/al-Qaeda.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"none of those killed participated in the operation itself". Jim Sukwutput 22:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I think this is a case of common sense that doesn't require a crystal ball. As said directly above, "sometimes 'news' is historic". This is important history for Seal Team Six, the recently publicized elite unit (bin Laden killing). WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. Jesanj (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is nominated for ITN and it could be posted if not for AfD. Couldn't it be speedy-kept and the AfD template removed? The outcome of this AfD discussion is too obvious anyway. GreyHood ^Talk 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest posting at WP:AN to find an uninvolved admin faster. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge no indication of any lasting significance of this - WP:NOTNEWS. Mt king ^(edits) 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we tell about lasting significance at this time?..Only time can tell that..and no time has passed yet it happened today for crying out loud. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-While, the grammar and literacy is at major risk for professional editing, and still at its prime, this, of course, is simply a matter of stating the factual examination, reports, and statistics. Not on the factual opinions of a decision to believe a user's research and information usage is biased and uneffective, of course, instead to edit and assist an error if, plausible. A policy prohibiting an article or category on genocide, war-crimes, or thousand-year conflicts, can be ignored or reedit the policy in this situation, more or less, in a governmental or Military record.--Corusant (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP:SNOW. This is a major event in the context of the war and the specific communities involved; the details of the operation and the wisdom of packing two dozen SEALs into a fifty year old air frame for a QRF and sending them off to a hot LZ will be debated far into the future. I'm working on cleaning it up some. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, where the bulk of the info in the article is already mentioned anyway. Outside the families of those killed, I would suggest that this event is of most significance to that organisation. I can't see that there is any need to have what is essentially one paragraph of information at two separate places, which is what this whole discussion boils down to. The information is already recorded in another article, and redirects are for people looking for such info under another name. Seems pretty simple to me. YSSYguy (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the above or to the death of bin Laden (Neptune Spear) article or the article on Chinook helicopters (under incidents) or 2011 aircraft non-accident incidents. But yes, it is sufficient to include because the United States- having started the campaign after September 11- has always contributed the most troops to this war and it is the deadliest single loss of lives for them since the war's beginning in 2001. Just because Wikipedia presently may or may not cover other wars and the casualties from them properly, perhaps having predominance in listing toward America, Europe, or the West, or on offenses or campaigns by America or the West, does not disprove or decrease the severity of this incident and is not justification enough to remove it. It is not uncommon, and it is perfectly reasonable, for encyclopedias- including those online- to have articles on significant aviation disasters- which this is- or purposeful incidents (terrorism) from a wide variety of countries, even if it does involve a lot of other incidents, space, crowding, or verification of sources.
Keep As someone who is involved in this situation, I can say with 100% certainty that most of the details of this article are untrue. However, the incident is the single deadliest aircraft crash in both the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan. This is also one of the deadliest days for Army Special Operations Forces in their history. This is a significant enough event to warrant it's own page without being lost in another article (merge). Information will be posted and updated as it is available. --CavHoah (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC) — CavHoah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I frequently see the "WP:NOTNEWS" thrown up for AfD on an article simply because the topic was in the news. WP:NOTNEWS does not and has never banned articles on topics that were in the news. It's to prevent "routine" events like, as WP:NOTNEWS literally states, "announcements, sports, or celebrities." The deadliest event for American armed forces in a 10 year war is not like "announcements, sports, or celebrities." To believe that this topic will not have enduring notability with public international mourning, investigations, debates and anniversary events extenting for many years (decades?) relating to this topic is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what do all you keep !voters suppose will happen if, say, a Hercules crashes next week and kills 31 Americans? YSSYguy (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll make an article out of it like we do for all notable air crashes. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine how cluttered Wikipedia's coverage of, say, the Vietnam War would be if it was around then and we made an article for every significant event there? --BDD (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to be clear, your rational for deletion is you feel this article sets a precedent for "clutter"? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not news. Marcus Qwertyus 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - KEEP, KEEP, KEEP.

Keep - Are you trying to hide the fact, that, Americans died? This is the largest single lose of life in Afghan war, and it is indeed important. By the way, I edited the last comments, since they were CAPSLOCKED and not wiki formated.Frajjsen (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am only a casual reader. I have limited military experience. However, it does appear obvious that it is a huge single loss.

The biggest one I have heard of. All highly trained and experienced. A huge loss of intelligence . All the local military units will suffer. As well as congressional member budget cuts.

Comment: This seems to be approaching the winter wonderland threshhold. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - from the article: 'The deaths are the greatest loss of US military lives in a single incident since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001'. Obvious evidence of notability right there. Robofish (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - just like any serious documented incidents (such as the Tarnak Farm incident. Easily meets WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this event warrants an article, however its title really needs to be changed. 174.93.217.251 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High enough loss of life in a single incident for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would rather this article had not been created immediately, but now that it's here we should probably keep it. The fact that it's the worst single incident in terms of military deaths for the U.S. in Afghanistan is obviously of some significance, but beyond this the event is being covered in multiple contexts. There has been speculation that this might affect the overall debate over involvement in Afghanistan [9], it has been discussed in the context of the Navy SEALs overall particularly because of their recent involvement in the death of bin Laden [10], and there has been discussion of the importance of choppers in Afghanistan but also the risks that they face and changes that might be needed.[11][12]. Unsurprisingly there are a lot of local stories dealing with those who were killed, their families, etc. Basically this is a significant event in a significant conflict which seems to be kicking off ancillary discussions and stories, so keeping it makes the most sense. Finally if !keep votes continue to come in at the rate they are now a close per WP:SNOW would probably be appropriate and a time saver. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:39, 7 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Anthony Hall[edit]

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

Self-promotional article about a photographer. His claim to notability seems to be that he has had a lot of shows, sold some limited editions and has made donations to charities, and that these things have been recorded in notable magazines. But there's no evidence of significant coverage. Undoubtedly fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:ARTIST and I don't think he meets the wider criteria at WP:GNG either. From the author's talk page it seems that this is an autobiographical article, so there's a major COI too. andy (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding authorship - this article was written by a Public Relations professional as are all my press releases and as such are intended to be objective, for my personal subjective view see below. It is a fact that this article was submitted by myself David Anthony Hall.

Regarding my occupation - I am an Artist I indeed use a camera and I produce photographic based prints but I retired as a professional photographer over 12 years ago and I haven't taken a commission since. I am noted for my large scale panoramic photographs a technique I developed whereby multiple images are captured to create larges scale seamless images with enormous detail. At his 2009 solo show he produced the largest picture of its kind ever finished in the UK and at his 2011 solo show he went on to produce the first ever circular pictures of its kind. Hall's work has also appeared alongside Prof Ken Howard, Prof Chris Orr, Mary Fedden, Damien Hirst, Dame Elizabeth Blackadder and Sir Hugh Casson at The Royal Academy of Arts 2011. My work sells exclusively through Bricks & Mortar Galleries

Regarding meeting notability criteria,

David Anthony Hall is the only Visual Artist using photography to exhibit at the RHS Chelsea Flower Show to date with a concept garden dedicated to their work. David Anthony Hall is the only UK based Visual Artist producing photographic works at sizes up to 10' x 5' His charitable donations total £30,000 GBP in particular The Children’s Acute Transport Service donation in June of this year was their largest single donation nearly £13,000 GBP and came from the sale of one photograph, proof of all donations if you need them. The Marie Curie Cancer Care Auction at The Royal Academy of Arts 2011 which was by Invitation saw David Anthony Hall's work appear alongside Barbara Rae, Sara Rossberg, Prof Ken Howard, Prof Chris Orr, Mary Fedden, Damien Hirst, Dame Elizabeth Blackadder and Sir Hugh Casson most of whom have Wikipidea pages of their own.. The PhotoVoice Auction of Exceptional Photographs 2010 which was by Invitation saw David Anthony Hall's appear alongside top contemporary photographers most of whom have Wikipedia pages of their own. David Anthony Hall is the only landscape photographer to have had two west end solo shows ever. These are not self funded show but curated shows by a gallery with a 30 year pedigree. At his 2009 solo show I produced the largest picture of it's kind ever finished in the UK. At his 2011 solo show I produced the first ever circular pictures of their kind. David Anthony Hall is the only Irish born photographer to exhibit at Art London, London Art Fair and Affordable Art fair in the same year, other than Frieze these are the top Art Fairs of their kind in the UK and are Highly vetted. This year will be my fourth taking part in most of these fairs David Anthony Hall's sold out works are equivalent to half a million pounds worth of retail sales and it is only a matter of time before my work appears on the secondary market trough private auctions and in this context I feel it is important to list them.

Importance

In the context of Art / Photography and charity fundraising a lot of David Anthony Hall's achievements are important.

'Marie Curie Cancer Care' ! Having had his work included in their Auction along side Damien Hirst and Sir Hugh Casson at the The Royal Academy (the ultimate art institution in the UK if not the world.) David is now working with MCCC to use his artwork in the recently commissioned Solihull Hospice. Lady Cotton, Specialist Projects Leader has personally asked David because she can see the difference to patients his work can make. Again to consider his artwork in the context of Complementary therapy is again important not only to the Art world but anyone suffering from cancer/terminal illness.

Similarly links on The Children’s Acute Transport Service were marked as 'self promotion' However this was (CATS) largest single donation nearly £13,000 GBP and came from the sale of just one photograph. Surely this is important information and not self promotion?

In fact all the links on the charity pages were provided as this page was considered a orphan because it wasn't linked back to by other Wikipedia pages I believe that these links are valid and should stand?

I look forward to any comments

David

David (talk) 6 August 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant self-promotion and advertising under G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Self-promotion. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:05, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Enough to Eat[edit]

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

Non-notable comp. 10 pages of Google returns and all I found was an allmusic review calling it "inocherent" (linked in article) and two passing references. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of a series of notably innovative and influential budget priced samplers issued in the UK in the late 1960s. As well as the Allmusic review, there are references here, here and here - "the best of the lot.... a tremendously varied hotch-potch of standards and styles that hung together perfectly on one dirt-cheap album." It's important to recognise that a "sampler album" like this was designed to showcase new material and expand the market for new music among a budget-conscious (i.e. young) audience - it is a quite different concept from a "compilation" of old material. In many cases these sampler albums are therefore inherently more notable, and influential in their own right, than almost all "comps". I would not object in principle to merging articles into, say, Island Records budget sampler albums (1960s), so long as the details including track listings (critically important in the case of sampler albums) were retained - were it not for for the obvious point that that is not a common name, and it would be.... well, silly. Much better to keep this album (and others similar) as free-standing articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This article has existed - harmlessly, and completely untagged - since 2004. That's not a reason necessarily to retain it, but it begs the question of why it needs to be deleted now. One of the problems is that we are dealing with an album that is 40+ years old, and whereas there would have been no problem in demonstrating its "notability" 40 years ago, it's clearly tricky to demonstrate it now, using predominantly online (hence, recent) sources. If it goes, WP becomes even more recentist and US-centric than it already is, but I'm sure that's a small price to pay. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided are not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline.
1. The Julian Cope piece is a review, and reviews are not an indicator of notability. Note that they aren't mentioned at all in Wikipedia:Notability (music).
2. The google book search tells us nothing, if we can't evaluate the source we can't just guess.
3. The allmusic piece is a simple item in a list/database, and doesn't go to notability.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less per Ghmyrtle. The Island samplers were particularly prominent and influential in the industry at the time of their issue, and were generally well-covered in the music press -- which is, of course, miserably available online. The very first entry in the GBooks search results reports that, for example, the Nice Enough to Eat sampler was particularly important in promoting the career of Nick Drake, certainly a quite notable musician. I have to see, in all honesty, that the comment above, that "reviews are not an indicator of notability," may be the single worst argument I have ever seen put forward in a deletion discussion by an otherwise reasonable editor. First of all, despite what user AB says, they are clearly covered by Wikipedia:Notability (music), which states rather plainly that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the defining criterion; it does not "mention" any types of coverage as being preferred. By the same illogic, every form of coverage which can be categorized should be excluded, since no categories of coverage are listed. Reviews are the primary means of establishing notability for contemporary creative works; NFILMS and NBOOKS quite explicitly recognize the point, for example, and the fact that some other guidelines might not include them in their list of examples reflects happenstance rather than policy or guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources The Mojo ref is certainly reliable, but the other two might be spammy/unreliable. As such, we're left with a single reference to establish some notability, which is tenuous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Nick Drake bio or the "Films and Filming" review? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response This might be spammy and it's not clear that this is reliable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is, obvious, among the sources I asked about. We measure notability by the better available sources, not the worst, and if the strongest case you can make out is that some, but not all, of the sources might not be reliable, it's time to think about folding your hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source I had no idea what Nick Drake source you meant--it wasn't listed above and it wasn't in the article at the time that you mentioned it. If there are three sources and two are unreliable, that is actually a very good argument for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there are now three unequivocally reliable sources - the Mojo book, the Drake bio, and the Guinness encyclopedia (which I have no idea why you think "might be spammy"), together with the Allmusic review and other reviews. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that a full textual reference to the album is contained in the Nick Drake WP:FA. I've added the ref to this article. If anything most clearly demonstrates the album's notability, it is the reference in that biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 6 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. Made main subpage into primary topic. Original dab page no longer there. Dcoetzee 05:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Diamonds[edit]

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

Unneeded disambiguation page. There is now a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the soccer team), since the indoor football team has changed its name. The soccer team's article has been hatnoted in preparation for a move to this title. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Nom. It takes 2 things to need a dab. (ps; dab's, even when not marked as such, should goto WP:MFD, but I think we can deal with this one) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:56, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space kingley[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Article is about a minor, unnotable comic annual from the U.K. that was published in the 50's. Article is unreferenced, doesn't explain notability or importance, so since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:IINFO... Pstanton (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor rival to Dan Dare and perhaps worth a footnote there, but I can't find anything that shows notability. I imagine there were dozens of other Dan Dare clones. andy (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not noteworthy. One issue, no cult following, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 6 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 List of Fremont Unified School District elementary schools#Parkmont Elementary School. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkmont Elementary School[edit]

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

nonnotable elementary school, per wp guidelines on such schools Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fremont Unified School District elementary schools#Parkmont Elementary School. Article doesn't present sufficient independent notability to warrant a separate split article, however this list article seems to be just a fine place to have this content. If there's anything worth merging from this article into the list one that's not already there, that could be done too. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and precedent. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list, thats a better option than deletion, as it makes searching easier.(original nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 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 List of Fremont Unified School District elementary schools#Mission Valley Elementary School. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Valley Elementary School[edit]

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

another nonnotable elementary school. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as mentioned. --Pstanton (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list, thats a better option than deletion, as it makes searching easier.(original nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fremont Unified School District elementary schools#Mission Valley Elementary School. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 13 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. Can be editorially redirected. causa sui (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbourne Elementary School[edit]

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

nonnotable elementary school. the awards are not particularly noteworthy, and WP guidelines on elem. schools say they are not worthy of articles simply for existing. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list, thats a better option than deletion, as it makes searching easier.(original nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the nominator that "the awards are not particularly noteworthy". The Blue Ribbon Award is the highest award an US school can receive. Separately the school meets WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article we have a number more e.g. [13][14]. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to district page. Any information that is referenced by a secondary or tertiary reliable source, should be made into its own section within the district page, as is common practice. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a general rule of thumb, we've always kept articles about blue ribbon schools because that award is the most honorable award that a school can receive in the United States, and there's not too many of them out there. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the very low number of blue ribbon awards given each year, I think it is reasonable to treat this as proof of notability. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fremont Unified School District. Courcelles 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gomes Elementary School[edit]

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

nonnotable elementary school. WP policy on elementary schools means they are not automatically worth of an article just for existing. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to district's page, and if that is not appropriate delete... there's no reason this should take two AfDs to resolve. Independent elementary school pages need some pretty obvious reason to be notable on their own... not seeing that here at all. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for elementary schools. This ended No Consensus the first time around (2007) on the basis of the arguments of some that a school being designated "Blue Ribbon" conferred notability on an elementary school. Clear consensus in 2011 is that high test scores are well and good, but are not sufficient to set aside our well established practice of considering elementary schools non-notable save in extreme circumstances. Having the simple rule of thumb SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN, PRIMARY SCHOOLS OUT saves us all from having to parse sourcing for tens of thousands of articles on schools. No disrespect to the kids, teachers, and administrators involved — good work, etc. — but things really do need to be this way, with elementary schools redirecting to the district or city (with information merged there if desired), rather than sitting as stand-alone articles. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list, thats a better option than deletion, as it makes searching easier.(original nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - normally I would support redirecting an elementary school but a few are notable and I would say that this is one of that few. Firstly, as a Blue Ribbon School it has won the highest award available to US schools, an award that less than 5% of schools achieve. Secondly, if we take the sources in the article together with others available [15][16][17], they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That award was from 1987... there are over 80,000 elementary schools in the U.S. alone [18], which is why the bright lines work well, I don't see a reason to abandon that in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but we have long considered that the Blue Ribbon makes the recipient school notable and notability is not temporary. I agree that most of those 80,000 schools are not-notable but this one is. TerriersFan (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to district page. Any information that is referenced by a secondary or tertiary reliable source, should be made into its own section within the district page, as is common practice. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 10 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. Sandstein 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Gold Loaf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Elvis ate this sandwich. So what? The restaurant that served it turns up nearly no results, and there seem to be very few reliable sources pertaining to this article, aside from the Elvis anecdote, and it seems unlikely to expand beyond a stub. GroovySandwich 09:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see Ramble Colorado, for example. Worst case is that we'd merge with other articles about gross sandwiches such as Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich. Warden (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ramble Colorado.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Presley. On mention in a single book isn't enough to stand on its own. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Elvis Presley or Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich#Variations. Article doesn't have enough notability to stand up on it's own, but could definitely be merged to somewhere else. I personally think it would better fit in the Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich article. The fact Elvis ate a sandwich probably doesn't belong in his article, it borders on trivia. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Colonel's discovered source. Passes GNG, ~~probably could find more~~ 43 mentions on Google news alone; several books with recipe and story. It's a great anecdote, a likely search term, and sourced, so keep. BusterD (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article cannot be based upon a single source. One paragraph in one book is not the foundation upon which we could write anything, nor would be two paragraphs in two books. None of the google news sources I've looked at appear to satisfy the requirements for the general notability guideline. Per below. This also isn't a good merge candidate, there's just not enough material there to make it worth while. The basic facts of the sandwich are not covered by GFDL, so delete and place a redirtect is fine even if the information is eventually to go in some other article. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [19] small mention in article about elvis food book
- [20] another article about the book
- [21] also about the book

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Please can we evaluate these sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Merge with another article. Although an interesting anecdote, that's all it is and seems to me be rather trivial. Dalyup! (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in here to make this "sandwich" notable. It is also a content fork of Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich.Curb Chain (talk) 13:48, 13 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 Illinois's 10th congressional district#2012 election. The firm consensus is that the usual rule in WP:POLITICIAN -- that pages about candidates for office get redirected to the relevant election page -- should apply here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Sheyman[edit]

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

Delete Per Wikipedia notability guidelines on politicians: "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'" In my opinion, this candidate has not received enough coverage yet to meet the notability requirements. If he is elected, or even if he wins the primary, obviously he would have enough coverage, but currently, the candidate has only received local and blog coverage. Half of all the sources are primary sources, and do not contribute to the notability of the article, while many of the independent articles were all written by the same person. Also, it seems like this article was written by a campaign staffer (although this can be improved through editing). It is my opinion that, at least until the candidate is the subject of substantial independent coverage, that this article should be deleted.

Reason D1245 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an NPOV article about the 2012 Illinois 10th Congressional District election. We don't need a slew of promotional WP:COI articles about unelected candidates for office. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't really know how to do this.

The redistricting is likely to make IL 10 the most heavily Democrat district held by a Republican in the country and Sheyman is one of two Democrats running in the primary.

Here is more coverage that Sheyman has received. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/6619748-418/democrats-aim-to-retake-north-shores-10th-congressional-district.html

http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/north-shore-dems-gear-up-for-2012-elections#photo-7172015

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/kirk-schakowsky-dold-talk-debt-ceiling-compromise

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/sheyman-raises-almost-110k-for-congressional-run

Interesting. But I think that Wikipedia would include the following press as reliable sources:

Chicago Magazine: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/June-2011/The-Race-for-the-10th-District-A-Look-at-Ilya-Sheyman/

NBC: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Crystall-Ball-Says-GOP-to-Lose-Four-Seats-In-Congress-126332858.html

The Associated Press: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110428/news/110429673/

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/illinois-redistricting-de_n_872142.html

Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015701407_immigpol24.html

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/171197-rep-dold-raises-big-for-tough-reelection

And also, $110,000 in one quarter is hardly anything to scoff at. It is more than twice as much as Presidential Candidate Buddy Roemer has raised: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/21/buddy-roemer-announces-presidential-bid/ And no one is itching to delete his presidential campaign section of his wikipedia page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.20.95 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to IP Editor 216.15.20.95 Speaking personally, and not as a Wikipedia editor, if I lived in Illinois' 10th Congressional District, I might consider supporting Ilya Sheyman for Congress. Also speaking personally, the chance that I will support Buddy Roemer for President is zero. However, speaking as a Wikipedia editor, Buddy Roemer was elected to the House of Representatives and was later elected Governor of Louisiana. Buddy Roemer meets WP:POLITICIAN and Ilya Sheyman, at this point, doesn't. Buddy Roemer is notable by Wikipedia standards and Ilya Sheyman isn't. Here on Wikipedia, we don't have biographies of people running for office who have never been elected to a high office, just because their campaign staffs have sent out a slew of press releases that got reprinted. Instead, we cover such candidacies in neutral articles about the specific race. Those articles cover all the candidates in an even-handed way. Feel free to create an article about the race, that describes all the candidates for that office in a neutral fashion. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing anything pertaining to this race. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, only a few of those articles had Ilya under significant coverage (press releases and other primary sources excluded). And considering multiple sources by the same author are considered one source for notability, you only listed around three sources that can be used for establishing notability. D1245 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about who you would vote for. The point of this Sun Times article which is 100% a notable and primary source

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/6619748-418/democrats-aim-to-retake-north-shores-10th-congressional-district.html

Is that the IL 10 race in particular is notable at a national level because of the redistricting process. And that Ilya is one of two Democrats running a contested primary. This make Ilya's candidacy itself notable.

I don't have a conflict of interest and I didn't create this page, I saw the marked for deletion note which doesn't make sense.

What I am telling you is that the race is one of the most watched races this cycle, and that Sheyman himself is a notable figure for running a real campaign in this race.

I have looked at the notability rules and Sheyman passes them with ease.

It is important that people are able to find biographical information about Sheyman himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.20.95 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although you said that the Sun Times article says that this race will be one of the most watched, notability cannot be assigned preemptively. Perhaps if Ilya wins the primary he will receive the coverage necessary for an article, but until then it should be merged into a general election page per Brad Schneider's Page (Ilya's Opponent). D1245 (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passing GNG. Redirect as above. The Sun-Times article makes direct and detailing, and the interview in the Chicago Magazine (which is a blog but a professional one) puts this subject past the bar for general notability, therefore WP:POLITICIAN is moot. Lots of national coverage in the links posted by 216.15.20.95, and the two above can't be consider merely as local (unless appearing in the NYT or New Yorker are likewise local sources). I'm going to source this page better. Please allow me a period of time in which to source this before closing. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with BusterD. Not just local coverage, but nation wide, he clearly notable. Dream Focus 05:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:POLITICIAN is never moot when discussing a candidate who has received press attention only because of his candidacy. This candidate should be discussed in an article about the specific race that includes neutral coverage of all the candidates. That's the only way to ensure the neutral point of view, which is one of our most important policies. It can be summarized as "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." All of the coverage mentioned above is utterly routine for a congressional candidate with a competent staff. They send out press releases and the local papers print some of them. Much is being made of his "national" coverage, yet the Seattle Times coverage is a reprint from the Chicago Tribune that mentions him only in passing. Coverage in The Hill is half a sentence, and that's a specialist publication for political junkies like me, not a general circulation publication. The NBC coverage is by the local Chicago affiliate and not national. The Associated Press coverage was printed in the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago area paper. There is no significant coverage in the national press. It is all routine and in passing. There is no reason whatsoever to depart from WP:POLITICIAN in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. All coverage consists of information relating to campaign announcements, endorsements so far, etc. We specifically avoid having articles on these kind of routine candidates; jeez people, at least wait until the primary. Candidates in elections always get routine coverage, that's why POLITICIAN specifies what is needed. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cullen is probably right about the redirect here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that there's significant discussion here is also notable regarding the article's relevance and notability.Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god no. If having an intense discussion in an AfD proved the notability of a topic, well, I shudder to think what this encyclopedia would be made of (articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/11/11 would be the least of our worries).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm withdrawing my rescue attempt. I spent part of a day looking in the NYPL for offline sources, but couldn't find anything significant. After reading User:Cullen328's points above, I have to admit I couldn't find anything at all (outside of blogs) which pre-dates the subject's announcement. Sorry, squadron, I let you down. I could clean up the page, but I couldn't make the page meet WP:POLITICIAN. Everything I found relates directly toward this election process. Subject is reputed to be a "Kossak" but only 31 posts by him in Daily Kos doesn't make him seem a significant enough blogger. Perfectly worthy subject, but especially since his primary opponent's page has been similarly redirected, better to not take sides myself. Again, sorry to those I might have disappointed. BusterD (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does get coverage for other things. http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/83278/ "Ilya Sheyman of the group True Majority was among demonstrators who rallied in Burlington." They quote him there in 12/17/08.
Got coverage for his "AP State Scholar awards" "Daily Herald : Column: The briefs $2.95 - Daily Herald - NewsBank - Dec 12, 2004"
Was getting political even in high school and getting coverage for it. "Daily Herald: A practical civics lesson $2.95 - Daily Herald - NewsBank - Oct 31, 2002 Stevenson High School student Ilya Sheyman addresses Buffalo Grove village board members Monday during the annual Civics Forum This year's topic was the ..." Dream Focus 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial passing mention and a two sentence sound bite in brief radio coverage of a protest demonstration, and passing mentions of a high school student by the suburban newspaper covering the town where he lived. Are you really arguing that this is significant coverage? By your standard, millions of Americans are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, including pretty much every single candidate for office anywhere. By that logic, we may as well scrap WP:POLITICIAN if it wasn't for the fact that it's the product of consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen, but specifically those sources do not pass WP:EVENT criteria. D1245 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 11 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. Relisting didn't help here and I don't think it's worth it to relist again. Some sources have been added, and as such I'm not seeing a consensus for deletion at this time. Notability can always be revisisted later, and if it's lacking we can easily merge this back into the artist's article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Molestar![edit]

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

Non notable album; did not chart anywhere. Singer's notability is arguable, too. Diego talk 03:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NALBUMS: Not reviewed independently, didn't chart. This one's out. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator made an unsubstantiated statement that the album didn't chart. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her article in Spanish (es:Raquel Calderón#Sencillos como solista) states that 3 singles from the album charted. Whether the album charted or didn't, since the English Wikipedia doesn't have articles about the singles, I think it's logical to let the album stay. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found a reliable source: [22]. This is a good long article about the album. I'll just add it to the External links section. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chile has no official charts for singles nor for albums. That La Tercera article basically explains why she did that album and her opinion on it, after breaking from the band Six Pack. [23] That article says the album was released on June 19, 2008. I have found no information regarding if it ever did sell well or if it charted elsewhere outside Chile, because it has no charts; per se all info about Chilean charts is faked. Even the Spanish Wikipedia asserts that it is a blog, is a blog created by someone unknown reliable? I'd certainly say no. It didn't chart. Diego talk 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  No charts? Nice. You can delete all chilean singers than. :) Moscowconnection (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Anyway, the article in la Tercera addresses the subject in detail. So the album is notable per WP:GNG. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  You certainly didn't get the point, that there aren't charts it doesn't mean they cannot be notable for selling well their music in Chile and elsewhere, I'm not going to name such artists, and it clearly isn't the case of Miss Calderón, since there are no reports on her music selling well nor charts elsewhere outside Chile. La Tercera covers the subject's opinion, and it is only one source anyway which covers it in detail; that doesn't mean it is notable automatically. Diego talk 00:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The fact that the list is published in the form of a blog doesn't say anything about it being official or not. Moreover, the article in the Spanish Wikipedia that you showed me calls the charts "official" and vaguely asserts that the chart positions are somehow calculated basing on radioplay and music download. Based on what you wrote, one could assume that the Spanish Wikipedia article was a lie. But you gave me the link yourself to prove your point. Therefore, one can assume that it tells the truth. If the charts, as you say, aren't in fact official, you should nominate the Spanish article for deletion. Then we'll see what happens. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not nominating it. Furthermore, read WP:CHARTS#Deprecated charts. Diego talk 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. You convinced me that Chilean Top 100 charts aren't notable. But, as I can conclude from the La Tercera article, the album is. Moscowconnection (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:PROMOTION. No GNG here. No assertion of notability. Neither presented link actually has source material on the other end as of this writing, so now unsourced. ~~One of those expired sources makes it clear the linked article was an advertisement of the album and is now "from a campaign that is no longer active".~~ BusterD (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look? Have you read this source? LA TERCERA It's perfectly okay, you just need to scroll down, and it's a reliable source. It's an article in the Chilean newspaper La Tercera. The article is about the album and it's very long and detailed. Moscowconnection (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly didn't look as carefully as I should. Still not impressed with the source, but the editor is right that one source does link to content. I misread the advertisements around the story as the story. It was foolish and shows I was tired when I made the edit. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't find anything there at first too. Those "inactive account" banners abstracted the view. Moscowconnection (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added a second reference, to another article in La Tercera about the album, this one. Now it's "repeated coverage". Moscowconnection (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a third one. The one that was found by the nominator. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Here's a related AfD I came across today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Calderón. Moscowconnection (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that's canvassing. Please refrain from doing that. Diego talk 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you be a little bit more precise? I don't see any canvassing here. I believe I did what you should have done. You should have notified me in particular that there is another discussion that I might be interested in. There are 2 AfD nominations by you, they are related. I only noticed the other one today. Moscowconnection (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 6 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. Withdrawing per User_talk:Bejinhan#Stations and User_talk:Vanadus#RE:_Stations. (non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 06:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AYangGyo Station[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements. No reliable and independent sources to be found. Bejinhan talks 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Try a search in Korean: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) or just read the Korean wiki page. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:18, 6 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 all, including Template:Lists of 'year in' articles. @pple complain 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of '1995 in' articles[edit]

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

Delete. Does not add anything more that what the categories, articles and templates already do. It also adds "clutter" to WP and needs ongoing maintenance. The appropriate year article eg. 1995, 1996 is a better and more developed set of articles that does more that the ones I have put up for deletion. Also the Special:PrefixIndex with a search string of "XXXX in" where XXXX is the year will achieve better results. Yet another way to search is 1995 in for example.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an aid to maximise navigation for the users of WP. Categories and lists go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. "Also the Special:PrefixIndex with a search string of "XXXX in" where XXXX is the year will achieve better results." Maybe so, but I doubt the average user will know how to do that. Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The extra advantage in navigation for readers is negligible. As I have stated, individual year articles with their templates are better developed and sell served with templates to make navigation and maintenance easier. Also, are editors doing to produce these "List of" article for future years as well as all the years prior to 1995? Obviously, to avoid recentism there needs to be a series of these article going back as far as possible. The individual year articles go back thousands of years. I cannot see that happening with this series of lists. Granted, the search using Special:PrefixIndex is not likely to be used by most readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all seventeen. Among the advantages of lists are the ability to include items which don't have their own articles (as in List of malls in Toronto) and to discuss the entries beyond a mere listing (as in List of centenarians (miscellaneous)). This article, on the other hand, has no benefit beyond what a category would provide and simply adds to the maintenance burden of creating new articles. Ma^t_chups 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely redundant with categories, although I find the "maintenance burden" argument unconvincing: WP:DEADLINE/WP:NOTPAPER, and inclined me to !v keep until I saw the articles themselves, which add absolutely no advantage over what a "XXXX in" category tree would do. The keep argument on the advantage of extra navigation is unconvincing because anyone searching for these articles would probably do it using search tools for the specific "XXXX in" article, rather than a list of them, and semi-automated info-mining tools generally use categories as they are guranteed machine readable, unlike articles. So I guess delete is correct in this case, but arguing for deletion in a project with millions of editors and very easy to use editing tools based on burden seems a little far-out...--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles are undoubtedly much more helpful then searching stuff in categories. It makes navigation faster and more comfortable. It shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aro777 (talk • contribs)
- But the individual year articles such as 1995, 1996 etc are immeasurably superior for navigation than these articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles need references, without them these need to be deleted Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all does nothing the categories don't doCurb Chain (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a set of content and navigation forks. We already have excellent well-maintained articles on years. At the top right of each of those pages, a useful template Template:C20 year in topic makes all the pertinent connections. It is possible the template needs improving a bit. Recommend we redirect each of these deleted pages to the appropriate year article. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article was speedily deleted under A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canker sore home remedy[edit]

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

Prod was contested. This article appears to be a clear violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. VQuakr (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prod was contested, but this is a pretty blatant example of what Wikipedia shouldn't have under WP:GUIDE. --Pstanton (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A10 - fork of aphthous ulcer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a how-to guide and redundant content fork. The latter may warrant CSD A10.Novangelis (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A10 and I have so nominated the article. Safiel (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How to article. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A10 as already mentioned. Aside from that, the article currently fails per WP:RS (no sources at all) and WP:OR. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:36, 7 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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Even if there is a slight majority for delete, the term is still a useful redirect as it is a plausible search term - As I am a member of the I-P Collab project, I will submit my close to DRV upon request. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian cause[edit]

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

Nothing of substance. Most of the information is already available in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian people Boycotts of Israel and of course Palestinian political violence. Looks like a clear case of WP:OR. I can't think of a comparable article for precedent. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Nothing of any substance worth keeping in my opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This article contains no meaningful content worth keeping and is completely redundant with Israeli–Palestinian conflict, only titled in a way that would create a WP:POVFORK. Marokwitz (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the title and article aren't perfect, obviously there are a variety of Palestinian resistance organizations using different tactics and if Palestinian political violence is worthy of a topic, then the larger topic of Palestinian rights activism does seem worthy of one article, not just mentions here and there spread over a variety of articles like: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian people, Boycotts of Israel, 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, List of Palestinian solidarity organizations, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Palestine/Israel genre is flooded with enough unencylopedic articles. This one in particular is another blatant fork of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian political violence - all of which address the "Palestinian cause" in a more balanced manner. There is nothing original in this article. Nothing of substance. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Palestinian cause is a fork of Palestinian political violence? So there's no activism that isn't considered violence if it supports Palestinians, now? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as Malik Shabazz points out, there's no substance here. While an article could be written on pro-Palestinian activism, there's nothing here to keep. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What's to merge? Carrite (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --GHcool (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many articles covering similar subjects. Anything not covered elsewhere can go in Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Zero^talk 05:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's still a valid search term. Nightw 22:57, 9 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. No consensus for deletion. Better sources can likely be found, based on discussion. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali[edit]

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

No evidence that the general notability requirements are met. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article about a 19th century Turkish musician now has two sources. One can assume that online English sources are rare, but older printed sources in Turkish are more abundant. Can the nominator, who may be in a better position to research Turkish topics than I am, describe in greater detail why this musician is not notable, remembering that Turkish language sources are fine for such an article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inadequately sourced as it stands, but this is a historical figure from a non-English culture and it's not reasonable to expect a wall of Google hits about a seminal kemençe player from a previous century; the sources are no doubt out there, even if not currently showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not familiar with the subject. But non notable and poorly sourced are different concepts. If the sources are too few, we can tag for citation. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any printed sources about him. So I nominated this article. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 23:49, 8 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ringo (Visual Artist)[edit]

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

The references do not establish notability: one is an interview at a gallery showing his work, and the other is the gallery's blog. Additionally, as noted in the template at the top of the article, it's largely copied and pasted from this website. Lagrange613 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find nothing to desmonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only external reference goes to a blog.Curb Chain (talk) 13:32, 13 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. Can be editorially redirected. Sandstein 08:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italianism[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Powers ^T 00:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we want to get rid of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary we should delete this article. (A case can be made to go the other way.) It could be mentioned in the article on the Italian language, although it might be asked why the English word for this topic is especially noteworthy even there.Borock (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD. Phuzion (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear example of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of English words of Italian origin might be helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered that, but then I clicked through and noticed that that list article comprises not just Italian words used in English, but also loanwords that have been adapted with English orthography. Powers ^T 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need this. We already have List of English words of Italian origin. Linguogeek (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin. Cnilep (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a dictionary definition. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to loanword. Seems harmless as a redirect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:36, 11 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) 00:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plover Website Builder[edit]

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

There is no indication that this software product is notable. As written, it also reads like an advertisement. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making the article appear less like an advertisement. I'll see if I can find other reputable sources. Others welcome to assist of course! Iansocool (talk) 22:57, 23 July 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, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly does not meet WP notability requirements, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not by a longshot. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are mainly from the company itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable media mentions. I didn't see any notable mentions on both a Yahoo! and Google search, aside from the company links. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another software that fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 7 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 01:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bay-Schuck[edit]

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

Sub-notable person.

This is the second version of this article. The first was PROD'd (with no objection) but the article was re-created, so here we are. According to this, that may have been at Mr Bay-Schuck's direction, so I suppose we have to kill this dead here.

Mr Bay-Schuck is a vice-president (a vice-president, not the executive vice-president) of a medium-size company. And that's it. He's neither more nor less notable than one of the vice-presidents at your local seven-branch bank.

I and another editor separately took the time to the refs for the last incarnation of this article, and came to similar conclusions (see the article talk page). Short version: two of the refs are no good for a BLP, the third may or may not be OK but anyway is just a bare list of credits, and the fourth (Billboard) is good. (The article's earlier incarnation had a Variety article instead of the Billboard piece; Variety is also a good source but that article had very little information about Mr Bay-Schuck.)

So the article rests entirely on the Billboard piece (it's here). Well, first of all, Billboard covers the music industry, in the same way that Conveyancer News (or whatever they have) covers the real estate law industry. It's not a general-interest publication, and any coverage here is a very far lower indication of general notability than would be similar coverage in the Los Angeles Times or whatever.

And even in that context, it's not a full article. It's one paragraph in something called "30 Under 30" where I infer that Mr Bay-Schuck is lumped in with 29 other up-and-coming junior executives in this particular industry. The article begins "Aaron Bay-Schuck has made a name for himself at Atlantic Records Group", and I suppose that's fairly accurate, and I consider it quite possible that the name of Mr Bay-Schuck has come to the attention of the senior executives at the very top of the heap at Atlantic Records.

But, you know, so what. Sure, it's A&R. And A&R is important. And Mr Bay-Schuck signs people, and that's important (imagine how embarrassed they'd be to produce a record and then find out the artist hadn't signed a contract). But reinsurance is important too, and I don't see articles about up-and-coming junior executives in the reinsurance industry.

Puff piece, vanity, conflict of interest, no article. Enough man-hours have been spend on this sub-notable person. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fluff about another corporate A&R guy who thinks he's Tha Man. Only notable if a "Zanz Kant Danz" was written about him; and it hasn't been. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 9 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 clear consensus right now. I recommend following Noleander's rename suggestion and see if the article about the organization sticks. The list of BLPs may be deleted if not sourced inline. Sandstein 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Young Global Leaders[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. I see far more redlinks than blue, and no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to be indicated based on WP:Org#No_inherited_notability. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, what's this crusade against redlinks? It is misguided -- they help the project grow. Lists of award-winners for any award of significance are eminently verifiable (you are right, currently lacking sources - {{sofixit}} :-), and they identify other articles that may merit creating in the future. – SJ + 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've got no opinion about this list but I just want to echo SJ's comment: Redlinks are GOOD, because they show us what still remains to be written. Are all of these ever going to be written? No. So what? Carrite (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not discounting your point of view, but ... we should be mindful of the last paragraph of WP:REDNOT Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft! Do you realize that World Economic Forum#Young_Global_Leaders has only 3 sentences about it and a list of about 30 names there too?? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'Young Global Leaders' - The group itself is mildly notably, barely. So WP could have an article on the group. A mere list, though? No. So, I suggest mutating this list into an article on the group itself. I understand the group itself is barely notable (it doesn't look like they actually do anything: it appears to be mostly a status symbol) but it is well documented. --Noleander (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is barely enough to sustain a section within the Parent Article already. If the intention is to link these bluelink people together in a group, I believe a Category would work better. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audiomachine[edit]

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

Notability asserted but not demonstrated. Neither "Entertainment News" ref even mentions the company and the other ref is a self ref. Not notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 11 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG in full. Its only grasp at a claim is its relationship to the UNEP. The creator probably has a conflict of interest (User:UNEPtourism), and most of the edits that aren't his are general cleanup or bots or people tagging the article. Raymie (t • c) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Referenced to a reasonable degree on both books.google.com and scholar.google.com. Is a United Nations project. Mentioned in NYT and a number of world newspapers. I admit that the article reads like a press release, but it seems to me to be salvageable and notable. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 6 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) 00:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cavey[edit]

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

very borderline claims to notability. The "books" are not self-published--they seem to be published by the Florida Bar Association, but based on the WorldCat descriptions at [24], they do not appear significant. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 00:19, 30 July 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) 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability.FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that she is truly notable. Simply writing books does not make someone notable unless the books (and thus the author) get significant attention from multiple independent sources. Even getting an honorary award from a US state isn't enough by itself to make someone notable. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography about her. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 9 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 Text display#Eggcrate displays. Has been merged. Can't delete because of attribution issues. Sandstein 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcrate display[edit]

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

Dicdef, stub, unsourced since forever. Tagged for merge for two years but nobody's done anything. Either delete or redirect to a target, but I can't think of one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable sources shows that the term "eggcrate" is used far more often for diffusers for overhead fluorescent lights than for the show business application described in this article. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Probably best to merge into Text display This is a valid and useful albeit narrow topic. It is an old way to display an alphanumeric character. Diffusers for overhead lights and this topic are two different things. Previous merge suggestions were erroneous. I created a section at the Text display article containing all of the material from this article. So you can safely delete and redirect now. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per North8000, since content of the subject page has already been merged into Text display. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 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 Usamaru Furuya. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Cuts (manga)[edit]

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

No references, the only link Viz's online store without even an image. Found a 2005 blog referring it to a manga few people knew about but was good. Loads of sites where you can view it but can't find anything notable, maybe others can. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Usamaru Furuya. While old this could be a search term and I see no harm of the redirect being towards the author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The manga has been adapted into a series of minute-long "micromovies" by Shogakukan (archived website here). _dk (talk) 01:22, 10 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. Sandstein 08:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Alliance of Evil[edit]

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

The entire premise of this article is original research, and if you cut out the original research, it duplicates List of Power Rangers villains. Problem is that the show never used the term "United Alliance of Evil" to refer to Dark Specter's alliance. It is entirely fan-made. The relevant passage confirms this when it says, "Its name, mentioned only in passing in the series Power Rangers: Zeo, has been adopted by fans as a description for the forces amassed by Dark Specter in the series Power Rangers in Space, though the name was not officially used in this context." This seems to prove that the premise is original research, and no reliable sources exist to confirm the use of the term "United Alliance of Evil" as describing Dark Specter's alliance - only a group that the Machine Empire once belonged to, and not the alliance being discussed here. Any connection between the two is fan fabrication. Thus it must go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 31 July 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I disagree with the premise of the nomination. It seems to me that it would be possible for a fan-generated grouping of characters to become notable, if secondary sources covered it. However, although I am not an expert on the show, it seems to me that the real topic of this article is a list of bad guys, not the organization the United Alliance of Evil. One article on the topic should be enough. Borock (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reformat in a way that does not convey the apparent importance of the name. Some of the content here, which is a list of characters of whom some are not replicated on other pages on the project, is of some use. Just because the current title of the page "United Alliance of Evil" is not an official term utilized by the production company, that does not mean that the entirety of the page is original research (fictional character biographies can be sourced to the fiction of which they are a part of) and lacks sources. As I always say in these AFDs on these kinds of things, fictional characters from a children's TV series are not going to get the critical coverage that other fictional characters do, particularly when the subject is getting near 15 years old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was absolutely no reason for SchuminWeb to have orphaned the article everywhere it was listed. Last I checked, that was not how AFDs were run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then reliably source the use of the title, used in the context of Dark Specter's alliance. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubly redundant, as the same information is conveyed in List of Power Rangers villains#Power Rangers in Space villains, and Power Rangers in Space#Villains. No need for a separate article where the name is only a fan name with no appearance in official show sources or reliable secondary sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. There are better things to do than to remove all links.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:45, 12 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. AndriuZ's opinion is discounted because it appears to advocate disregarding WP:V and WP:NOR, which is not an option. Sandstein 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of management techniques[edit]

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

Basically undefinable - can it be anything but original research? Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what you expect from timelines (or lists)? --AndriuZ (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our policies WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR apply to lists, timelines, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There does seem to be some pretty obvious original research in there. I'd definitely like to see a reference that asserts that the problems faced by slaveowners in antiquity relate to "management techniques" as currently used. - I am Spartacus! - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think that this could possibly make a WP article, but the present problems would be difficult to overcome without OR. Firstly there is the scope. I suspect that it is a list of things that some US writers on the topic have chosen to include. Hence the emphasis on slavery, for example. It disregards the military experience, or much of the world, or many aspects of the relationship between the techniques of production and human organisation, to pick just a few examples. Secondly, there is the verifiability problem. Many of the items listed may be valid examples of a technique being used or described if appropriately referenced. But I think I'm right in saying that the dates quoted for use of accounting in Italy are too late to be described as that of introduction. I'm sure that the medieval master used a variety of techniques on his apprentices. Robert Owen was not the first mill owner to struggle with the problem of getting the best out of his workforce or the moral duties of the employer. And so on. --AJHingston (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has the noted challenges and potential challenges, but there is much good information in there. By "information" I include attachment to the time line. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references; hard to verifyCurb Chain (talk) 13:18, 13 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 Eurabia. Usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was honestly expecting to have to vote "keep" on this on the basis of JSTOR reviews, but there actually aren't any. Couple of reviews, mostly in right-wing publications - not enough to attest notability. The title's been in the news recently because Ye'or's writing inspired the recent terrorism in Norway, but these are trivial mentions; the reviews in reliable sources that would be necessary in order to keep the article are lacking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. It might not have genuine academic journal reviews, but it was reviewed in the London Review of Books [25], and apparently it coined the term Eurabia, which was picked up by others. It was also cited multiple times in NYT (click news link above) in 2005. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It did not coin the term, as, according to the article Eurabia, Ye'or herself says. It may be possible that she was the first to use the term with this meaning. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, she appropriated it see [26] (review in Middle East Quarterly). Speaking of which, that source claims to be peer-reviewed, but given the glowing reviews all of Ye'or's books get there, it's a highly biased pool of reviewers, I suspect. By the way Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide doesn't have much more sources than this one, so you should nominate that one as well if you think reviews for this one are insufficient. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I don't consider the LRB source to be significant coverage. It contains only two paragraphs on the book - the first is a lengthy blockquote from the book, and the second just repeats the endorsements on the book jacket. No actual commentary from the article's author on the book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think the rest of the paragraphs are not a subtle disparagement of this book (as a conspiracy theory itself), you didn't read the review carefully enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We'll have to differ on that one. (At least your source names the book - I've had one user claim a piece was a "review" of a similar book when it never even mentioned the title!) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Luckily the Financial Times was far more blunt. It doesn't take deep analytical skills to parse "Eurabia has been described as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in reverse". FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also reviewed in [27], Mediterranean Quarterly, 2 pages. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:NBOOK because of multiple reviews. More here: [28] [29]. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to smerge and redirect to Eurabia. It's somewhat notable for what it has started, but two articles on essentially the same topic are not justified by the amount of references addressing this book in particular. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eurabia per FuFoFuEd. I'm not convinced a redirect is called for, but since redirects are cheap, why not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to me that is most useful distinguish between what Bat Ye'or writes in her book and the general use of the term "Eurabia". Anyway how we could link Bat Ye'or with YouTube's video "Muslim Demographics" or Muammar al-Gaddafi's speech or Ayaan Hirsi Ali's position? Even Mat Carr admits "Eurabia" had moved from "an outlandish conspiracy theory" to a more mainstream and "dangerous Islamophobic fantasy". This last fantasy should be separate by Bat Ye'or's book. I don't know if this is the place to discuss this but I would return to the topic of the coinage of the term "Eurabia". I would note that the quoted Mat Carr (extensivly quoted in order to criticize Bat Ye'or) writes "The term was originally coined by the British-Swiss historian Bat Ye’or."..And please note the term "historian" used by Carr. About the notability question Bat Ye'or exposes her theory in the entry "euro-arab anti-semitism" in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, Volume 1, p. 115.[30]. History professor Seth Armus writes: "there are certainly worse books on the subject than Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, by Bat Ye'or, and her sistematic analysis deserves serious attention. It is not her fault that her thesis has been widely embraced by thoughtless polemicists" (French anti-Americanism (1930-1948): critical moments in a complex history, p. 167)[31]. --Domics (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC) and Israel W. Charny, psychologist and historian, even if in disagreement with Bat Ye'or writes that she is "a world-renowed scholar of Islam" and that she "has been published extensively and respectufully by important academic presses and who is invited to lecture at responsible and conservative academic centers".(Charny, "Fighting suicide bombing: a worldwide campaign for life", p. 34).--Domics (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly passes notability. --Gelobet sei (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Eurabia - one thing is being known or perhaps more appropriately, "notorious", and another is being notable. Since the article on Eurabia is about the same usage, and this book is indeed considered to be the first said usage in a book, it belongs there, since there is no independent notability for the book, all of its notability is linked to the notability of the term itself, of which the book had much less to do than the blogs on the internet.--Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources - nearly everything is either a passing mention (not significant) or a more-or-less personal website (not reliable). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Book seems pretty non-notable. --Pstanton (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The few secondary sources are damn obscure. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AgreeFeatherPluma (talk) 01:57, 6 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 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Unveiled[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not received the necessary coverage in reliable sources - I found one review in Islamic Studies, another in the National Review, and one in the Daily Times, but three reviews are not enough to attest notability. (The title's been in the news lately because Spencer's writing inspired the recent terrorism in Norway, but these are passing mentions.) I'll note that the strong consensus to keep in the last AfD was actually founded on very poor arguments, such as "the book was published by a non-vanity press," "PBS mentioned it in passing once," "Author is notable and other books of his, though not this one, sold well," or WP:JUSTAVOTE. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What policy-basis is there for your statement that three reviews are not enough to attest notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are bound to have their own individual cutoff points for notability. To choose an example at random, I know Carrite has a low bar for inclusion of political organizations, whereby zie allows wiggle room in the "subject" and "significant" criteria of WP:ORG. I take the opposite tack: while two or three constitute "multiple" in a strictly technical sense, I don't think that that's really in the spirit of a guideline intended to ensure that only books which are notable are given their own pages. I'm also looking at this book in comparison to other Spencer books which are notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of them are not reviews by independent people or institutions who evaluate the book, but by people who engage in a political dispute, each with his own agenda. The fourth source is not a proper review. If these were three detailed reviews published in reliable sources with a track record for accuracy, I would probably vote in favor of keeping the article. Cs32en Talk to me 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill book from "the Islam industry". Does not justify a separate article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to users giving the article FuFoFuEd a cursory glance to the title page, rather than reading it through: it's not actually a review nor a substantial discussion of the book in question. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 6 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 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 13:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I had some hopes for this after I saw it included in a Combating Terrorism-course syllabus, but there are no in-depth reviews in reliable sources that I can find. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Except perhaps Future Islam, but one review wouldn't cut it anyway - everything else is trivial or unreliable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 6 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 Apology of al-Kindy. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 13:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that page is retained as an aid to disambiguation, even if the book and the personage in question may be obscure. -Alan (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We would have explain this at Al Kindi, based on reliable sources. Cs32en Talk to me 18:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the book. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cs32en Talk to me 08:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 31 July 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, redirect. There's nothing to say about the character, since he's just a mouthpiece for the book's arguments. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and I see this has already been done. Huh? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article for now, in conformance with "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". --Lambiam 19:39, 7 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 01:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Belgian GP2 round[edit]

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

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Bahrain GP2 round Falcadore (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 31 July 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, 6 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 01:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 New South Wales 2000[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of fighting results. 11 years later I doubt it meets WP:EVENT for longstanding notability. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all More routine sports coverage on minor events that lack reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all notability not established, and this isn't a fully professional sport. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 7 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 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DailyPerfect[edit]

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

The primary author of this article admitted to a conflict of interest on the talk page. The references are two blog posts (what makes them reliable sources?), an article on ReadWriteWeb.com (I would doubt this one's reliability, too), and a reliable piece of coverage from a news organization. Still, that doesn't seem enough to meet WP:GNG. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 July 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the non-reliable sources, a single RS does not notability make. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Looks like a new web site product and a wp:article to promote it. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. I did find another possible source (here), but it seems to focus too much on future speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 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 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Damas[edit]

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

Article was originally speedy deleted as G11. It was then recreated and most recently was dePRODed by an anon-IP editor. The article still suffers from overly promotional tone, and does not establish notability per WP:NMUSIC. The cites provided are not strong reliable sources and the only claim of notability I am able to locate is that he was honoured by ARTEtv. I am unable to locate reliable sources to verify that claim though. But I may be having difficulty finding sources because I do not speak Portuguese, and am happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can turn up significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 July 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable coverage. Aside from MySpace, Facebook, official website, YouTube and iTunes links, I didn't find anything notable on both Google and Yahoo! searches. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Existing sources seem too "glowing" to be reliably independent. Also concerned per WP:COI, since the article appears to have been written by a WP:SPA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Economic Forum. Courcelles 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davos Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to only be a neologism, although sometimes used. Another concern is that the article takes a very negative view of these "Davos Men" and although no individuals are named in this article many are in the related, and linked, article World Economic Forum. Borock (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I tried to contact interested editors but none of the major contributors to the article still seem to be active and it is not part of any project. Borock (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. World Economic Forum would seem to me to be a plausible redirect target given the nature of the subject. I see a fair amount of casual use, but no real systemic definition, which would seem to indicate that this is at least partially original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:52, 4 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to World Economic Forum. May be noteworthy in the context of the WEF article (the Guardian source shows that it has had at least some discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, if it's made clear that the phrase is mainly an insult given by critics. Borock (talk) 16:26, 6 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 . Marasmusine (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Bay (Mafia)[edit]

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

Not enough direct and detailed coverage in reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability, as required by the general notability guideline. No notability independent of the game itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or may be salvage something to Mafia II. Non-notable fancruft outside its game. The city as an entity keeps getting mentioned in RS, but always as a part of the game. In any case WP:OR WP:CFORK from Mafia II and unwarranted WP:SPLIT at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 6 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.