Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 30

< 29 July	31 July >

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 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enosi Geraka[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not seem to be notable. Giant Snowman 23:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Truthsort (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Warburton1368 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A team which has always played in the local championships of Athens. Non-notable. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 13:27, 2 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 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UP Chemical Engineering Society, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N or WP:CORP ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable media mentions. I didn't see anything that didn't link to the company's website on both a Google and Yahoo! search. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously does not meet WP:CORP. Truthsort (talk) 23:38, 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 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewVillager[edit]

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

Nominated for A7 speedy deletion by Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs), but a significant part of this article is about an art installation, which are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion (and no others apply). I don't think the subject is notable, but it requires discussion to determine this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete under A7: Organisations {{db-org}} otherwise~~ Delete as not meeting the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that having an installation at a notable gallery is more than enough of a claim of significance to make it ineligble for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, so changing my recommended outcome PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I could not find any significant coverage about them in Reliable Sources, and the references listed in the article cite no major reliable sources. The group is clearly still a cult or underground phenomenon. However, I was intrigued to find that they seem to have an international reputation; they rate only seven mentions at Google News but those items are in four languages. They include passing mentions in the Irish Times and the Village Voice, which would be important sources if the items were more substantial. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523[edit]

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

Scarcely seems to meet WP:Event. 2 broken legs as an outcome is something that happens in dozens of road accidents on any given day that has no wider coverage than a local rag. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sympathetic to your point of view but the airliner broke in half. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, the longstanding notability guideline for airline accidents is that if the hull is written off the accident is notable and the article is to be kept. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I know, it's the first accident of this kind in Georgetown, Guyana and to the Airline as Caribbean Airlines. Maybe BWIA had a similar case or Air Jamaica as lone carrier, although I'm mot aware of. This incident is comparable with Air France Flight 358, which overshot the runway at Toronto Pearson International. In the Kaieteur News article are more injuries mentioned than just them two broken legs. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN and FlightGlobal. - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a hull-loss accident and meets WP:GNG. NZLS11 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a hull-loss it meets WP:AIRCRASH - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware of wp:aircrash, so if someone wants to speedy close it, I have no objection, but it certainly seems to me to set a far lower threshold that wp:event envisages, and scarcely seems to have potential to go beyond wp:notnews. Are we really still so much in thrall to the notion of a big iron bird that it gets such a different notability threshold than any accident pertaining to other modes of transport? Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely welcome to post that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Binksternet. Joerg, the

BajanZindy (talk) 00:27, 31 July 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 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nervosia[edit]

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

An article that announces a band and their first EP for September 2011.WP:NMUSIC Sources are their record label, some sort of a blog (un?)related to the record label, the bands web page and the usual facespacetube.coms. WP:RELIABLE. Wikipedia is neither a free fan page provider WP:NOTWEBHOST nor a free record industry announcement platform. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. One band member is notable (has an article). He has recorded with 10 different bands, 4 of them have an article (including this one).WP:BAND#6. A CSD (A7) was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Succinct statement of all guidelines not met. There's already a mention of this in the vocalist's article, which is where it should stay. If the band gets successful, then it can be revisited, but for now it needs to go. MSJapan (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Current article has no independent sources and no indication of notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ben Ben (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for the article, thus it does not meet WP:BAND. Truthsort (talk) 23:41, 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 delete. Courcelles 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Day (LMFAO song)[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS, completely unsourced, no charting, no third-party notability. Mister sparky (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSONGS requires songs that have stand alone articles to have "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I see none here and have been unable to locate such material via Google search. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, no notability per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sorry for Party Rocking. —Andrew_stalk 07:13, 4 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 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Lloyd[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced BLP. Fails WP:N and WP:V. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not confirm to WP:NPOV and WP:BIO. No references provided to establish the persons notability.

Delete The asserted book of poems is probably self-published, as it is not on WorldCat, nor is anything else by this author. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 1 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Beckwith[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Specifically, it may fall under WP:BLP1E in that she's only been covered in the context of her death. Perhaps it could be merged into the charity: water article? ... discospinster _talk 17:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a case of WP:BLP1E as that applies only to living people and this girl died recently. Instead, I think that WP:NOTMEMORIAL gives the proper guidance here. The charitable work being done in this girl's memory is noble, but Wikipedia is not the right place to promote it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of NOT MEMORIAl. Wikipedia is not a place for articles based on pathos for people who are not of encyclopedic significance. There are other more appropriate places. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained above. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-written. Reliable sources can be provided for the details of the accident. It is not in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as a result of the last act of Rachel Beckwith's life. It is an undeniable fact that a fundraising attempt, initiated by Rachel Beckwith snowballed into a $600,000 inflow of money. While it is true that the tragic death of Beckwith brought about the results, the article is about the aftermath of her death. I think reliable sources amply support the noteworthiness of the fundraising efforts of Beckwith to "bring water to Africa". Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL/WP:BLP1E VS WP:GNG. I usually side with WP:BLP1E, except in rare cases like this. I first learned of her on NBC nightly news and read about her in both of my local papers, so this AfD piqued my curiosity. Her story has been told in alot of news stories. I've redone the main section, added references to CNN, MSNBC, Sydney Australia Daily Herald and a CBS news segment. This should satisfy WP:GNG and make WP:NOTMEMORIAL a non-factor. Bgwhite (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep: This child has uniquely touched many thousands of readers and contributors in a once in a lifetime way, and her actions and example continue to be spread by word of mouth all over the US and as far away as Australia and Europe. She may have contributed more to the welfare of more needy people than any other child in the world, and donations to her charity are still continuing because of her example. All records of her life and death, and validity of the charity she espoused are thoroughly verified through many past and present Internet sites and other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imokyourok (talk • contribs)

— Imokyourok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day (Musician)[edit]

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

Other than youtube, ghits is very sparse. Fails WP:N and WP:V. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Day has several news pieces that cover him in-depth:

this piece from Huffington Post on WalMart
this piece from Asylum.uk, also about WalMart
Alex Day is a speaker at VidCon 2011, and has biographical info here
An interview with Day by UltimateGuitar.com
This piece from The Sun is more about his band, but Day's is quoted multiple times about his reflections on the band I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I would have CSD'd this had I seen it, as I have done at Nerimon. Alex Day had to be protected because people keep creating an article on him despite a complete absence of evidence of notability. None of the above links make any sort of difference with regards to this. Note: I have created the previous AfD box at the top of the page. These are well worth a look, especially WP:AfD/Alex Day, because that was quite an impressive article but simply did not prove notability. This problem remains. Day fails N and V. —Half Price 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Day is surely notable for his achievements in numbers of viewership & subscribers?

(Quote from the article: As of July 2011, his YouTube channel was the Most Subscribed UK channel of all time, in the 'Comedian' category. ) [[|DefenselessPony]]User talk:DefenselessPony 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What makes Asylum reliable? The Sun reference is more about the band, rather than him, and I'm not entirely convinced by the VidCon reference, since he's obviously mates with the guys who put it on. I must confess that I'm not familiar with Ultimate Guitar, but if (as its article suggests) it's a community-driven website, then does it still have the same editorial oversight and fact-checking that we require from reliable sources? And, if not, then what makes it reliable? His subscriber count isn't totally relevant, per WP:BIGNUMBER. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, sparse G-hits, fails WP:V and WP:N. articles about this person have been created so many times, should they be WP:SALTed? 109.204.113.111 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article's subject is (I think) no more notable that that of the Vlogbrothers page, whose notability was agreed on. Day seems to have had a wide effect in his specific field, as well as coverage in mainstream media (such as worldwide music charts, and news outlets). In my opinion, the subject is notable. 18:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese453 (talk • contribs)

Continuing the above statement; in addition to the initial links from I, Jethrobot, there are also pieces from

The London Paper
this BBC News article
The Telegraph, and
The Guardian (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese453 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while those are all reliable sources, I'm pretty sure that they all featured as part of the previous Alex Day article written by Wmoran9550, and they were all discussed at length during its AfD. The consensus from that discussion was that they only contained the briefest of mentions of Alex and that it would be pretty difficult to verify a lot of even the most basic things in the article. Whether or not things have changed since then, I really can't say.

V o

BEDD 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with VoBEDD. These articles are all brief mentions, and it also should be noted that they all describe him in a way that would be used when the readers aren't familiar with the subject. —Half Price 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Half Price's arguments - it doesn't appear like anything has changed since last time. $V o$ BEDD 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Day was also had a main role in the documentary Chartjackers on BBC Switch (1). He was also interviewed on BBC Radio 1 about his role in the documentary (2). (Note: I realize these are YouTube videos, but they should not be dismissed outright for just for being YouTube videos. They represent sources where the subject is discussed in-depth). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yh, but Chartjackers was the most minor of minor shows - only one series, and each episode only lasted 5 minutes! tbh, I'm surprised that even that meets notability... 92.16.106.34 (talk)

The notability of Chartjackers comes from how that was the artist name under which "I've Got Nothing" charted in the UK. From #2 on WP:MUSICBIO, I believe that that therefore makes the series notable. As was mentioned at the 2nd Nerimon AfD, it unfortunately doesn't necessarily make Alex notable, because he didn't receive a credit on the single (i.e. it wasn't credited to "Chartjackers & Alex Day", for example). $V o$ BEDD 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per every argument favoring deletion at the previous AfD; they're all still valid. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician; doesn't establish either the music bio guidelines or general notability 92.16.106.34 (talk) 20:13, 4 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 speedily deleted under G3. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange (film) by Firdaus[edit]

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

Independent film of questionable notability. No references, no distribution, no coverage from reliable sources, no IMDB page, no claims of notability. Contested prod. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, as the entry itself makes clear: "Distribution: The film is circulated among producers' friends and network on DVD." Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable. The article provides no sources to establish the subjects notability. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the opinions of the nominator and previous posters, non notable for reasons already given. Safiel (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete unsearchable, unverifiable, and total failure of WP:V and WP:NF. IMDB search shows that filmmakers have no credits for any thing, any where, at any time. And while the text of article stating "The idea of the film originally came from the director, when he purchased a camcorder with another producer, Donny Yonatan in early 2010" could maybe indicate an amateur project by unknowns, my searches for filmmakers or film name plus filmmakers [1][2][3][4][5][6] give negative results. I strongly suspect this a WP:HOAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated article for speedy deletion under A7 and possible G3. Safiel (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, that was fast, I had the Speedy template up about one minute and the article was gone. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 1 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} 15:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Shu Yan[edit]

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

Autobiography, re-created after deletion by PROD. Claims of awards and of being an international superstar are not supported by references, nor borne out by searches - note absence of any News hits. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references provided, none can be found either. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 05:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity and unencylopedic article. As the 'singer' is also not notable, it doesn't merit an article on wiki. Keb25 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So this individual is notable because she's an "international superstar"^{[citation needed]}, because she grew up "with the leadership" of three prime ministers, because she has a brother who happens to be a host, and because she will release an album? CharlieEchoTango (discuss) 22:41, 2 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 3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

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

What on Earth is this? Aside from the obvious notability issues, the article is unreferenced, is too long, reads nothing like a Wikipedia article, and does not even clearly explain exactly what this battalion is. The article appears to be a long description of a battle or two, and it could be pared down significantly - but the way it is, not even clearly stating its topic. I don't even think cleanup can save it. Just look at the first sentence on the talk page: "We are in the process of updating the page for informational gathering by anyone searching for information in regards to 4/3 Infantry Battalion. Please do not delete, as the page will be nearly complete by the end of today (6 April 2009)." Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I actually nominated this a while ago, but never did step 3, and neither did Dumbbot. I have listed it now. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard). NtheP (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Redirect Also, there is no notability issue. The notability of individual Battalions, Regiments, etc. of the US and other major powers has been discussed previously and it has been determined that they are notable; for examples, see Category:Battalions by country. Quinxorin (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems a textbook case of original research. See the note at the end "Note – The writer is under obligations to General J. H. Eaton, Colonel Daingerfield Parker, Colonel Richard I. Dodge, General O. L. Shepherd (who has since died.), and to Mr. F. W. Heitman, for much information used in the preparation of this sketch." Composing a history of the battalion from direct contact with its participants is the work of a historian, but Wikipedia's purpose is not that of being the first publisher of original works of history (or anything else). FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:15, 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} 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Neumann[edit]

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

eBook author (possibly self-published) of questionable notability. Publisher is affiliated with Smashwords, a self-publishing outfit. No significant coverage from reliable sources found for the author or her books, references provided are all primary sources or sales links. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR, as I see no evidence for guidelines 1-4. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. The existing sources in the article are not suitable as independent, reliable secondary sources: amazon.de is a bookseller site, and Facebook pages are unsuitable per WP:SPS. I couldn't find anything more suitable via a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 July 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 Utti Jaeger Regiment. Courcelles 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Para Jägers[edit]

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

This page is nothing but an infobox (which at least saves it from criterion A3) and is a total orphan. However, this small, reservist organization fails WP:MILNG. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Utti Jaeger Regiment, which this company appears to be part of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Utti Jaeger Regiment. This unit is the paratrooper company of the Utti Jaeger regiment Special jaeger battalion training conscripts as paratroopers into army reserve, not a reservist organization [7]. Peacetime training company part of a battalion is not independently notable. MKFI (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per previous. --hydrox (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with previous. -Blankku — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankku (talk • contribs) 07:51, 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 00:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kulyat e saleh muhammad safoori[edit]

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

Non-Notable book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not easy to check sources for foreign-language books, particularly where there are likely to be variations in transliteration. The reference to the book's own website is a deadlink, and my searches found only one reference, which I have added to the article - a review dated 23 June 2011, from which it seems the book is quite newly published. It would take a good deal more to meet the fairly demanding standard of WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have redirected the article about the author, Saleh muhammad safoori, to this article as it already contained everything about the author that the biographical article did. I have no opinion about the notability or otherwise of either book or author. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 1 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod ER[edit]

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

Basically unsourced biography (only IMDb verifies subject's existence}. Notability per WP:NMG unclear. bender235 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 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, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Updated an external link to a reference from South Asia Post, but not sure it is reliable. There are sources from www.apnaorg.com and some other websites, but I wouldn't call these sites reliable. I see old movie posters with his name on them. I'm just not sure. Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm concerned (per WP:COPYVIO) about the similarity of much of the text of this article to the cited South Asia Post source. The article is also sorely lacking in independent reliable sources, which seems strange considering the subject's apparent notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:59, 24 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 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is this article about him from The Tribune which doesn't have the same reliability problems that the other sources might have. There is a legitimate copyright concern, I think the solution is to blank all of the copyrighted content, and try to bring together a shorter article about him based on such sources that can be found, I will try to make a start on this. It his hard to find reliable sources about someone from the pre-web era when you live in a different continent, so we shouldn't expect to find a large number of sources, but from what I've seen, he seems to be just about notable. Quasi human | Talk 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article I cited above is written by the same author as the South Asia Post article. Anyway, I have removed the copyvio content. Quasi human | Talk 17:05, 30 July 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} 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logwood United[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the players names, is it a even a real club? But anyway, no prove of notability, no references. Calistemon (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. Giant Snowman 13:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be a social/kickabout down the local leisure centre team, not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Another joke article. "Head coach: Money Man". Really? Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a nickname. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Warburton1368 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Spiderone 11:10, 5 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} 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campro F.C.[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. Giant Snowman 13:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article can't even make up its mind about the club name, Galaxy United or Campro F.C.? No sources, no prove of notability. Calistemon (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't this be speedied? What an embarrassing article. As non-notable as it gets. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, possibly a hoax. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probable hoax. Fairly laughable as well Spiderone 11:09, 5 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 It's been deleted under CSD G3.. Procedural (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine Treatments for Kidney Failure[edit]

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

Personal essay ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 13:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if it wasn't a personal essay, it is also fruit-loopery and quackery too. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original essay: "I read one reference, one time, in an obscure book on herbal medicine that claimed that the herb goldenrod could actually be used to re-grow kidney tissue, which is a large claim to make...." Carrite (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original essay, unsourced. In addition I have nominated for Speedy Deletion under G3. Safiel (talk) 16:29, 31 July 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropang Hudas 13[edit]

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

Despite claims of being the "oldest and largest gang" in the Philippines, the only reference to this name is a group on Webnode (created by a user with the same name as the author of this article) that appears to be some sort of online game of the Mafia Wars variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax. Google Books and Google Scholar agrees with me as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both a Google and Yahoo! search showed only one source to a Lagangs.us listing of gangs here, though that one mention isn't enough for an encyclopedia. There are thousands of gangs, should there be a Wikipedia article on all of them then? No. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable with no coverage by reliable (or even credible) sources. This gang in the Philippines appears to be a hoax. Searches for "Tropang Hudas" get only passing mentions about a minor gang in California. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 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. Consensus here is that the subject meets the basic notability requirement as per WP:AUTHOR (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Gabriel[edit]

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

Self-published sources, sources of uncertain reliability, and dead links. Cs32en Talk to me 13:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books are held in hundred of libraries according to [WorldCat, and have been translated into at least three languages. The articles on his books should be merged here. One article is enough DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [8], [9], [10], [11], .... --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:17, 5 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} 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Months on Ghazzah Street[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 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a novel by Man Booker Prize recipient Hilary Mantel. It may not be her most "notable" novel (see list here), but it is not entirely obscure either, and in my view it only serves WP's basic interests as an online encyclopedia to have an article on it. I do not see grounds, under WP:N, to remove it. What specific requirements would have to be met by the article in order for the deletion-nominator to agree to keep it? WikiDao ☯ 18:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the article needs several reliable sources that report on the book (not the author) in a non-trivial way, as described by WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 18:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a few (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), I will work on adding them to the article later today or tomorrow. WikiDao ☯ 18:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ample enough coverage (ie. reviews) found in GNews, some of which has been added to the article since the deletion nomination. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book reviews are the sources hat show notability of a book. The nominator should have looked first, before placing this AfD . DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, no remaining support for deletion; article needs work, but that's not the province of AfD. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology of al-Kindy (book)[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 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The book apparently features a character named "Al Kindi" (Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi). This character has no relation to the scholar Al Kindi. Cs32en Talk to me 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination. However, I continue to believe that the content of the article needs to based on reliable sources. This source gives some indications on the vast amount of uncertainty that surrounds this text. Cs32en Talk to me 08:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book has been regarded as an important text on the subject of Islam by scholars since the Middle Ages. Possibly it does not have anything important to say about Islam. However, who are we to dispute with people like Martin Luther? The fact that people of his stature were interested in the book makes it notable. --Alan (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology of al-Kindy (book) says it's "a medieval theological polemic tract attributed to an Arab Christian known as Al Kindi". However, Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi says that Al Kindi is the alias of a Christian character in the medieval theological work Apology of al-Kindy. I am nominating Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi for deletion as well, as that article also provides no indication of notability. Cs32en Talk to me 13:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the notability of Al Kindi as a person/character hinges on the notability of the famous Apology (although in any case there is an argument for the Christian Al Kindi's inclusion as an aid to disambiguation, given the possibility of confusion with the Muslim Al Kindi).

Leaving aside whether Al Kindi existed or not (I have no opinion to offer as to whether he is fictional), it is puzzling that no specific reason has been advanced for the book being anything other than notable by Wikipedia's criteria. The first issue to be determined is whether the book is notable or otherwise. -Alan (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not finding nearly as many sources as I would expect, it's still more than enough to attest notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roscelese says, there are enough sources to show this as notable--and I think, actually famous. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi is not the author of the book. While that source may of course be wrong, it would be very helpful if editors would write articles based, at least primarily, on reliable, secondary sources. Cs32en Talk to me 04:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've wikilinked is the article on the al-Kindi of the Apology. The Muslim philosopher is a different person who has a separate article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that these are two different Al Kindi's. However, according to the source I have cited, neither is the author of the book. Cs32en Talk to me 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you're getting that from the source you cited. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a look at the source again. You are correct: the source just says that the Al Kindi of the book is not Al Kindi, the philosopher. Sorry for the confusion. Cs32en Talk to me 06:17, 31 July 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. Difficult issue. WP:CSB applies, and this appears to be an issue that many do not want to comment or touch on. Some sort of merge may be appropriate, but I do not see any other way of closing this. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 Years[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 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merge into the article on the author. this is a nomination ignoring the WP:Deletion Policy, that deletion is the last resort, and that a suitable merge or redirect is always preferred. No reason given why this would be inappropriate, and merge/redirect is always available when the author has an article DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the article on the author is also very poorly sourced. I would agree to merge the content to that article, but that does not solve the problem that much of the content is inadequately sourced and would need to be removed, e.g. the sentence asserting that "Dashti’s opinion against most of his countrymen's beliefs put his life in danger." Cs32en Talk to me 05:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hmm, maybe I should bring up at Village Pump the idea of adding a JSTOR search onto Template:Findsources. I can't recommend merging, since there is no sourced content here, but the book seems to be a little notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?[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 12:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination. While the two sources in the article are insufficient, more reliable sources can probably be found. Cs32en Talk to me 20:14, 5 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) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Force of Reason[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 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like "The book was a bestseller in Europe" for example? Fair enough, it isn't cited but as per WP:BEFORE you could try that Google Books thingy (best combining author name with book title) to see various published discussions of this very book. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for the assertion that the "book was a bestseller in Europe", please add it to the article. Cs32en Talk to me 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, 1 min before you asked. AllyD (talk)

Maybe 30 seconds, as I had checked the article before adding my comment. This may be a good start, yet we need to present the book based on information taken from secondary, reliable sources. The statement that the book was a bestseller is not enough for doing this. Cs32en Talk to me 18:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable book that led to a well-known court-case: see the refs now added to the article, or others that can be found such as New York Times. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book was a bestseller and led to a court case that's discussed in books and such. The court case should be mentioned in the article, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 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 nominator (non-admin closure) CharlieEchoTango 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America Alone[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 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination. There are actually sufficient sources available, although the number of sources that cannot be classified as opinion pieces by ideological fellows of the author of the book is limited. The article, however, fails to make use of these sources, and will need to be significantly reworked to avoid bias. Cs32en Talk to me 18:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article describes Steyn's book as a best-seller (also so-described in this article in The Guardian and in this article in The Observer). And see also this Guardian opinion piece on the Canadian court case against re-publication of a chapter of the book, also covered in a separate Wikipedia article in its own right. And that's from just searching on the newspapers that I read. All in all, there is enough out there to establish the book's notability. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources need to be included in the article, and the article needs to be written based primarily on such independent, secondary sources. Writing articles based on primary sources, and on statements made by ideological supporters is not acceptable. Cs32en Talk to me 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that neither The Guardian nor The Observer can be considered an ideological supporter of Steyn's views. I'm also unclear where your series of imperative statements emanate from? They are not reasons shown at WP:DEL; rather it appears that you are seeking article improvement? That is laudable (and I would encourage you to seek and apply such improvements through normal editing), but not a ground for AfD. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other approach would be to delete almost all of the article, as it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV, a central pillar of the project. People who create biased articles, very likely motivated by their own POVs rather than by the goal of contributing to the encyclopedia, cannot force others to look for sources, read them, and correct their texts. (Note that I am not implying that you would be one of the editors that I am describing here.) We can allow articles that are incomplete, but largely uncontroversial, to remain in a deficient state, in an eventualist perspective. We cannot do this with tendentious articles, or in cases where the sources that are actually being used do not allow to determine whether the presentation is biased or not. Cs32en Talk to me 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly enough sources. And coverage is continuing. NPOV is usually attained by adding appropriately sourced material, and NPOV problems are not appropriately dealt with by deleting the article. There's no way of having a comprehensive encyclopedia that every will agree is NPOV, because different people have very different opinions of what that means in any given cases. Hence our standard principle for dealing with POV, that we include all responsible sourced views. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. There are enough reliable sources, meets WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:03, 2 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 to delete. Clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford Institute[edit]

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

Insufficient notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the unsourced content (about 2/3 of the article). If the unsourced content is not reinserted, and if the article is being written based on reliable sources, I'll withdraw the nomination in a few days. Cs32en Talk to me 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of a series of hit-and-run AfD nominations by a single editor, coming just three minutes after the previous one and two minutes before the next. We seriously need to ban the use of automated tools for AfD nominations. As one might expect, WP:BEFORE was clearly not followed here, with 260,000 Google matches for the specific phrase "Rutherford Institute." An iceberg that size is sufficient for the manufacture of several independently published and substantial snocones at AfD. This never should have been nominated. The Rutherford Institute is best known as a player in the Paula Jones/Bill Clinton scandal, an ongoing series of mini-"events" with historic importance. I'd look up some sources for y'all, but I've already invested more time in writing this paragraph than the nominator did in researching whether this was worthy of deletion, filing the deletion request materials at AfD, and making the necessary notifications. (Maybe what we need automated tools for AfD defenses...) Carrite (talk) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst I agree this is not a deletion candidate, I see no value in attacking the nominator in this way. That there are multiple nominations being made quicky does not necessarily mean they are insufficiently researched. For all you know the list of articles could have been researched and prepared in advance. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who worship Google News will be noting that there are over 4700 hits there. This should be a speedy keep... Carrite (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. The sources in the article are already an indication of notability per WP:N. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are currently referenced in the text are (a) reliable sources mentioning the Rutherford Institute in a trivial way, (b) reliable sources mentioning the Rutherford Institute in connection with the lawsuit of Paula Jones against former President Bill Clinton (one event), (c) opinion pieces, (d) blogs, (e) a single source by a research institute that may or may not qualify as a reliable source. These sources are not adequate to establish sufficient notability, and do not allow to write an article based on information that is actually reliable. However, the article may well be saved if more acceptable sources are found and included. Cs32en Talk to me 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources exist the article will be saved regardless of whether the references are added to the article before the close of play. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per the previous keep rationales. The weakness of my conviction reflects only my lack of previous knowledge of this organisation, but from what I can see it is (a) notable due to its prominence in a number of well reported cases, and (b) very controversial. This controversy is not really reflected in the article about it; I don't think it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include discussion of the controversy so long as it is suitably backed up with references. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If articles are so poorly sourced that there is no way to determine whether they conform to WP:NPOV, then we cannot indefinitely hope that sources may be eventually added to the article at some point of time in the future. The best way in such cases would be to have a deadline, with a bot-generated AfD after 6 weeks for example. But as we don't have such a bot or process, we need to make a decision based on the actual state of an article at some point. Wikipedia must not be cluttered with potentially tendentious articles just because we cannot exclude the possibility that they may be fixed eventually. Cs32en Talk to me 18:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The triple negative at the end makes my head spin. The question at AfD is whether a topic meets notability standards. Nominators are expected to check the internets BEFORE making a gratuitous nomination. There is absolutely no way in the green hills of allah that the Rutherford Institute is going to fail the General Notabiity Guideline. This never should have been nominated, period — a cursory Google search should have made that clear. Yet here we are, burning valuable time... Now, to your point: Wikipedia must not be cluttered... [it already is cluttered, but it's not paper, so no worries] ... with potentially tendentious articles... [controversy or possible controversy is no excuse for deletion] ...just because we [think they] may be fixed eventually. [Rome wasn't built in a day, millions of articles are in an unfinished state. That's part of the deal at Wikipedia — everything is work in progress, by definition.] Carrite (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:ORG; some was already cited, some was not. POV issues should be solved through editing, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sufficient sources. Though I would not like to think it happening here, nominating for deletion a number of controversial articles on people or organizations with a similar perspective or dealing with the same sort of general subjects has sometimes indicated bias. That's not reason for necessarily rejecting this or the other nominations from the same editor, but a reason for looking very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep I confess when I saw this pop up on my Virginia delsorting watchlist I did a bit of a double take and muttered a WTF?? under my breath. The Rutherford institute is a major civil liberties organization (albeit with a more religious bent). They're currently defending John Freshwater [12] and they've been involved in a host of other high profile cases documented in reliable sources. They even managed to swing an AP article about its founding [13]. Breezes right past WP:GNG. I'll add this article to my TODO list and try to beef it up when I get a chance.... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Panev[edit]

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

Non notable ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose it is possible that there are Bulgarian reliable sources discussing this player. But given that the player is still a child, I'd err on the side of caution. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 24 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, -- Lear's Fool 12:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Has only played for the national under-13 team and I could find no significant coverage in google news. Jenks24 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 15 year old player is not meeting NHOCKEY or GNG. Xajaso (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reasons stated above. Captain Courageous (talk) 09:15, 5 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. which amounts to keeping, and a strong recommendation that clean-up be performed, lest this be renominated. Courcelles 00:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someplace Else (Kolkata)[edit]

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

Delete. This article was primarily created in an attempt to establish notability of the Pseudonym (band) article presented for deletion. The article is highly promotional, with the subject lacking notability. Sources provided are advertising/promotions for bands playing at the nightclub. The subject is merely mentioned as a venue. None of the articles are specifically about the subject. Recommend deletion due to a lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someplace Else is a part of the Park Hotel, which is actually situated inside the park hotel. I didnt write this article to establish the notability of the Pseudonym (band). Most probably, I wrote this article long before Pseudonym (band), which was deleted (Someplace Else). You may check out the following links:

http://www.theparkhotels.com/kolkata/kolkata/someplace-else2156.html
http://www.theparkhotels.com/kolkata/kolkata/offers-events.html

There are more sources on the internet. Regards Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment. I started writing this article long before the article Pseudonym (band), you can confirm this. Check out the links below:

Someplace Else created on 08:43, 16 June 2011
Pseudonym created on 12:43, 6 July 2011

Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - Strictly promotional. Refs and "Further Reading" are all either directory listings of club's existence, or articles about bands that happen to mention the club. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The artilce has enough sources covered in major broadsheet newspapers in India which are considered as reliable sources according to wikipedia's guidelines. I dont know why its being considered for deletion even after passing out all the wikipedia's guidelines including notability. Everything written about the article are truths not promotional. Moreover, many international artists have performed here. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Strong Keep I agree that the article needs some major improvements to make it encyclopedic and fit the Wikipedia guidelines. But the amount of media coverage (especially from the The Telegraph) that the organisation has received proves its notability. — Finemann (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references provided are from reliable, secondary sources. As stated by other commentators, it is a mess and needs a good copy edit to bring it up to par format-wise. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the article may require encyclopedic improvement, the subject appears to be an important and major hot-spot for the development of regional pop culture and music. -- WikHead (talk) 20:49, 4 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest production cars by acceleration[edit]

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

In the past weeks when I attempted to clean up to improve the quality of this list, all I got was edit warring by various IP editors who wish to include their non-eligible modified dream car onto this list without even discussing why it should be mentioned and another editor who objected to my attempt for a cleanup as I intended to tighten up the listing criteria. My reasoning is that anything less than 4 second is nowadays easily achievable by any modern $150k exotics that they see on Top Gear (as well as less than 13 seconds for quarter mile times) by the looks of this list, which was rare 20 years ago.

My attempt to reason with an editor have failed as he wanted a comparison of times by those currently on the market and those recently discontinued (looking at the state of the list) rather than what this list is intended for, about the list of fastest accelerating cars, especially when he has done nothing to deal with this edit warring that resulted in this article being semi-protected, it is difficult to source reliable third party times as media have the tendency to use manufacturer claims (which is not always reliable), therefore this list is heavily reliant on original research, otherwise unsourced, because that editor doesn’t want to deal with any problems on this list. I don’t think it is well referenced like it claimed on the original nomination; otherwise, things have changed since then.

I am very willing to withdraw this nomination if there is any reasonable way to clean up this list but not in this current state per reason. Donnie Park (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not necessarily a nomination to delete this article, more of how it can be improved and I do not agree in this state. Donnie Park (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I do not find that claim that the article is WP:OR convincing. WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed if used carefully and the article contains WP:SECONDARY sources as well. Having dismissed the WP:OR claim, I see no other WP:DEL#REASON in the arguments presented above. This WP:AfD seems to be motived by an editing war. This is concerning, especially in light of the fact that no effort has been make on the talk page of this article to resolve the disputes in question. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay though primarily not really a nomination to delete this article, how are you going to improve on this article if you had to, surely not in this state as any $150k bedroom wall dream car can achieve these times, wheras 20 years ago, it was impossible. Donnie Park (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the decision on whether to include a car in the list needs to be stricter? Like only including cars with a 0–100 km/h time under 3 seconds? That would be something to discuss on the talk page but not a reason to delete the article. If someone keeps reverting edits without participating in the discussion, the process for dealing with that is outlined in WP:DR. If you've got a good reason for your changes but a malicious user keeps undoing them, WP:DR will take care of it. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that strict, my original proposal was 3.4 seconds and 12 seconds maybe 3 seconds in 5/10 years time. Donnie Park (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have List of automotive superlatives which tells fastest cars then we have also List of fastest production cars which should be deleted also... -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list is huge and per WP:SALAT should probably be broken up into separate lists. Deleting this article and adding the information to the superlative list would just make the problem worse. Further, this article provides far more information on speed than the superlative list, which only lists a couple of cars. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'fastest production cars by acceleration' is a curious subject for a superlative list. While fastest cars by speed is a very common subject and accereleration is likewise a common industry statistic, combining the two to make a new superlative list not in common anywhere really. I find that a list like this, not in common usage is not really encyclopedic. If I had to site something, I'd suggest WP:TRIVIA. --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA explicitly "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is over six years old and hasn't had a successful nomination for deletion. It is well written and well sourced and I think it is difficult to make an argument against WP:SALAT. I think it would be a shame to delete the article with an WP:AfD motivated by an editing war. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" huh! More like fallen into disrepair consisting of unsourced pieces and as with well written, more like a stub piece that needs more info written to it, not to mention, it would never qualify for DYK due to its length, don't forget, things have changed over the years. Plus how do you know claimed acceleration times by manufacturer are accurate. Donnie Park (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not well written, it is barely written at all. The article lead is just two sentences long. It does not even attempt to explain the title of the article. Having escaped scrutiny for six years is not a reason to keep. --Falcadore (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think that disagreement with the current scope of the article is a good enough reason to have it deleted. It could do with a bit of Wikifying though, as Falcadore points out. -- de Facto (talk). 22:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Context: there was a deleted comment above this one. This is not in response to DeFacto.) You keep repeating this, but it is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. You're having a content dispute with other editors of the article and instead of discussing it on the talk page or working through WP:DR you want to delete the article. I note no effort on your part to have a dialogue with the other editors of this page. This is not the appropriate forum for a content dispute and this AfD should be closed as keep, in part to discourage such behavior. The only argument I've seen that actually has merit is one based on WP:SALAT, but in my opinion no one has carried that burden. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". The cars themselves meet WP:N and I believe this list is encyclopedic, or at least certainly has the potential to become so. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you work on improving the article, this delete discussion can be made irrelevant. It is up to you. --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Further, an AfD cannot pass unless WP:DEL#REASON are shown. None are presented in the AfD, a few weak ones have been shown in the comments, and overall I don't think the burden has been met. It's up to whoever performs the closure, of course. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such a list compiling data gained from ununiform testing methods really doesn't help the reader.Curb Chain (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few musings: Is it encyclopedic? Well acceleration seems to be one way to measure a car's performance; and an article comparing various cars by that measure would seem within the realm of lists (we have plenty of Lists of Foos by Measurement of Somthing and where that something matters, it seems to be encyclopedic). There are numerous ways to measure acceleration as the article notes; however, there are numerous ways to measure lengths of geography: we have List of countries by length of coastline, when we have no uniform method of measuring how long a coastline really is; see: How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension. So, it's encyclopedic; so it should be kept. That it is based on un-uniform measurements seems to be no impediment, that point should be adequately flagged in the article.
Keep - all lists like this one, and similar are very useful.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Falcadore. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no uniform testing methods. The individual results may be difficult to replicate by others. Designed by the auto manufacturers and their marketers to increase the amount of boastful superlatives (BS). CZmarlin (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic, interesting list, content cars are notable, definition is good enough to make it all of these. Acceleration is a very commonly used metric, carmakers spend $ billions trying to achieve it. Trouble with inappropriate additions by other editors is not a reason to delete an article. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is that those times cant be compared, they are made by very different magazines or what ever publications, its gives false info about cars. The same problem is List of fastest production cars which has been nominated twice for deletion, these lists are just "fanboy" stuff not encyclopedic content. -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for lots of Wikipedia topics. The solution is the same as it is for those (e.g. wp:ver and editor work) rather than deletion of the article. And this is from someone (me) who thinks that there are too many list articles. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:07, 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. The only strong argument here is WP:DICDEF, which is pretty clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manu militari[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition. We already have this covered in Wiktionary. The article's author suggests that it's notable because it has a long history of use, but I don't see that as a valid argument. The article about the rapper (Manu Militari (rapper)) should be the primary topic. The term can be covered by a hatnote pointing to Wiktionary. Michig (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary: Something told me that this discussion had something to do with the rapper. I stand with my point that Manu militari is a war term with a long history of use in human societies (well, I'd set the starting point to when Latin was invented). I'm sure the rapper is a great artist (despite never hearing from him), but, considering the several other Latin term stub articles, Manu militari should not be deleted. Nonetheless, if you go on a massive AfD run for many of these Latin term stub articles, then I would not oppose you deleting them. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has nothing to do with the rapper. It is solely about this article. I mentioned the rapper because that was the article that was here originally and because if we do need to cover this term it can be covered by a link to Wiktionary. I'm not planning a 'massive AfD run' either - I just brought this one article to AFD. --Michig (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're not planning on going on an AfD for other Latin terms, and that articles such as Ex facie and Ex nunc have a place in Wikipedia, this just further supports my point that Manu military should not be deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are just discussing this article here.--Michig (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am establishing ground for this article by demonstrating the existence of similar articles. Why are you so interested in deleting an article with barely a few days of life? You're not even allowing other editors to contribute information for it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to "the existence of similar articles" isn't a good argument here. This is not an encyclopedia article - that's why I think it should be deleted. Perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on coming up with some sensible arguments for keeping this rather than constantly trying to find a hidden agenda here.--Michig (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically trying to do a speedy deletion of an article whose only "problem" was replacing some rapper named Manu Military. I would agree to having this article redirect or link to the Wiktionary entry, and leave "Manu Military (rapper)" as it is. Even the wiktionary definition of the actual term "Manu military" is more notable than a relatively unknown rapper.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. I do think, though, that there is a valid issue here regarding the Latin term as such vs. its use as the stage name of a rapper. A possibly analogous situation (which I'm not sure I like in its current form) would be Facts on the ground vs. Facts on the Ground (book). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right, even if this ends up getting deleted, it should still be the primary topic as a redirect to Wiktionary. "Manu Militari (rapper)" should retain its current article title, and be a secondary topic for when someone looks for "Manu militari". In my case, when I looked up Manu militari, I was hoping to find something about the Latin term and not the rapper (whom I had never heard about prior to my search).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wikitionary WP:DICDEF. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the current article is quite poor, but I think this might be a valid encyclopedic topic and not just a dictionary definition. The wiki article and the wikt:manu militari mention that the term has been widely used, including major historical persons such as Julius Ceasar. More sources would be needed on the usage and if the term has had clear legal definition (in treaties etc.). MKFI (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, but it would really take someone dedicated on the subject to expand the article. Ideally, the article should remain but with a note that a wiktionary definition exists. In the worst case, the article should be a redirect to Wiktionary. In any case, the "Manu Military (rapper)" should not be the primary topic.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:23, 4 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 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd' al-Sattar Beg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abd' al-Sattar Beg

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

No evidence of notability, References only point to his existence and make no mention of suits, Reliability of refs also in doubt _blogs (?). More likely to be a piece of advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete; no evidence of notability. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's a suit maker? Wow, he's the most important person in the world! He's so important, that's why I didn't see any additional media coverage when I performed both a Google and Yahoo! search. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete A tailor could be notable. However, unable to find reliable sources on him. Sources listed in article about digg and Dubbagol.com are not reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite possibly a hoax. No assertion his suits are special or unusual or well-regarded. I'm not certain why this person has an article. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 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 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Kotlyarova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP. Previously kept at AFD in 2006, but there's nothing here other than the fact that she came third in the Kazakh version of Pop Idol. If significant coverage exists, I couldn't find it. Michig (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article was created a number of years ago but no press coverage has emerged to support her other than some 2004 coverage of her idol competition.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable reality TV participant. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. No assertion of notability, and no persistence in coverage, so delete. BusterD (talk) 15:57, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Whiz kid[edit]

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

Moved (back) to: Whiz kid

Whiz kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I thought this might be a stock character or stereotype in a comic series. Actually it is not, and is just a misspelling of Whizz Kid. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why Whizz kid is redirecting here? Bulwersator (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep under this name. At a bare minimum, this article is mistitled. This article is a list of characters from various media who could be described as "whiz kids", not a list of characters in a book/movie/television program titled Whiz Kid. Maybe this should be moved, maybe it should be deleted, but it shouldn't stay under this name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although the page was moved, I don't think it's sufficiently sourced to warrant keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the nom makes no sense to me. What is a "Whizz kid" and how is it different than a "Whiz" kid? The page has been moved back to its old title of Whiz kid and a good-faith but erroneous attempt to convert it to a disambig page has been reverted. This is a legitimate article about a recognized type of stock character, and I see no reason for deletion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/re-write; I have previously stated my reasons on the article's talk page -- nagualdesign (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I never said it was a well-written article; but, AFAIK, "poorly written" is not a valid reason for deleting an article. The remedy is to rewrite it, not delete it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not TV tropes.; this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.169.211 (talk) 15:46, 29 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is some strange hybrid of an unmanagable and unnecessary list masquerading and an article about a character type. As a list, it might barely squeak by if it were cut down to only those characters that actually have RS sourcing that they are whiz kids, but that will never happen. As an article, it is a dicdef plus a bunch of OR. I hoped to find a media-studies scholarly article about the whiz kid archetype somewhere, but I couldn't. So, delete. gnfnrf (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:OR. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:39, 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 Article was speedily deleted. Non admin closure. Safiel (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lanthasmenokatadikophobia.[edit]

Lanthasmenokatadikophobia. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only source is urban dictionary. I typed this word in search engine and this page and the UD page were the only links. Fails WP:N. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 06:13, 30 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi St. George[edit]

Lexi St. George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly fails points 2 through 11. Fails point 12 as her television appearances were purely of a promotional nature. She fails point 1, as while she comes up with literally millions of hits on Google, they are virtually all viral in nature. The coverage on ABC cannot be considered as constituting an independent, reliable source as ABC has been promoting her. Once the viral promotion and downright spam are cut out, there is very little on this artist who has essentially failed to take off. In addition, there is simply very little here. A blurb about GMA and Ark Music Factory and her "discovery." A mention of a failed single release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Delete. Safiel (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails every criterion at WP:MUSICBIO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. "She is known for being picked...in the hopes of launching a brand new recording artist..." is not a notable achievement by itself. - Sudo Ghost 13:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lexi St. George was picked in a well known show after competing with many others in a trend of increasing influence of social networking artists. Her appearance was in a greatly followed program Good Morning America for a full week and adds to her notability. werldwayd (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:MUSICBIO does that fulfill? - Sudo Ghost 16:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The musician has been the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national TV in the US, satisfying criterion 12.- Nonlinear (Nonlinear) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)— Nonlinearlearning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It was a promotional appearance by the same company promoting her, and was not substantial enough to establish notability by itself. - Sudo Ghost 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good Morning America is not an independent source here; the article states that they specifically contacted this teen record label with the aim of promoting a new singer. In this context, it's inappropriate to treat it differently from any other promotional source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Breaking news can't hold undue weight when viewing a BLP in an encyclopedic context. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Week[edit]

Opposite Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to be an game made up in one day, with no chance of gaining a reliable source. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 05:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly WP:FAILN because WP:NRVE. Further, circumstances of articles creation lead me to suspect WP:SPIP, given the fact that the name of the creator of this game and name of the account that created the article are the same. To be honest, WP:SPEEDY is probably appropriate under WP:G11. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slowly. Speedy deletion is not appropriate here because this is not spamming. While it is possibly intended to promote this person's idea, the language is such that it is trying to be an encyclopaedia article - probably in order to be able to say to others that "this is notable/significant/whatever because it has a Wikipedia article". I remember playing games like this as a kid, and so developmental psychologists might have studied something like this. If they have, then we can write an encyclopaedia article about such research, but it wont be this article and it wont be at this title, which is afaict not what any reliable sources have used to write anything about the possibly notable topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT causa sui (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's already an article on Opposite Day which is pretty much identical to the letter, just with a list of pop-culture references added. Might be worth a passing mention on that page if anything. BulbaThor (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 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 00:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gehrke[edit]

Adam Gehrke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

local radio presenter with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, nothing past local interest coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions, none of which were on both Google and Yahoo! aside from affiliated websites, linkedin and social networking sites. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing substantial in the sources, no assertion of notability on the page. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:43, 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos López Rubio[edit]

Carlos López Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Article about a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources that prove that he has played at a high enough level. The only one provided is a blog. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He is yet to earn a senior cap at any level, and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 1 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valiban[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Valiban

Articles for deletion/Valiban (2nd nomination)

Valiban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per WP:NFF. This movie has been dropped and even before that there was never any considerable amount of pre-production done. Furthermore, this article was deleted before. -BiLLa- •^talk• 04:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, the film is not in production currently and perhaps never will be. Johannes003 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film is not in production, the only editor has created a fake cast to match his own desire. TamilFilmsUpdate (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this poster boy for WP:NFF. Over two years have passed since the last AFD for this topic and the film is only a little closer to filming now than it was back then. Allow back only if/when WP:NF can be met or a WP:NFF exception can be shown. As it stands, this stub article is still too premature. However, per WP:Planned Films and per available sources I am okay with a merge and redirect to director Silambarasan Rajendar in a section on his "planned films". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 3 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 Speedily deleted by Fastily under CSD criterion G3. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skowling[edit]

Skowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. It's a non-notable neologism. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:11, 30 July 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 twice, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario: After the Fall[edit]

Mario: After the Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"A promotional trailer was uploaded onto YouTube, and is yet to be officially publicised". Google returns no reliable sources. Enough said. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the likely hoax, this edit strains the assumption of good faith. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly reads like someone's false YouTube trailer. It seems that the article creator isn't taking it very well either, so we may need a salt on this one. Nate • (chatter) 09:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Also fails to meet WP:NFF standard for films. this user's talk page is of some concern. I've only been on Wikipedia for a month, so I'm not quite sure how to handle that. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that the creator is going to recreate it, so can we let this finish so we have a reason to salt it? -- $Σ talk contribs$ 19:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Drmies. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 05:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adikiaphobia[edit]

Adikiaphobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could find no reliable sources for this neologism. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason that the nominator can't find any reliable sources is that it is completely made up, which is among the most compelling reasons to delete an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as such I deleted it as a hoax--for the sixth time. It is salted now. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 30 July 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. Seems like yet another title this keeps coming back under... Courcelles 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo arias[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mateo arias

Articles for deletion/Mateo arias (2nd nomination)

Mateo arias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as required by criteria #1. According to IMDB the extent of his experience has been minor roles in four episodes of 4 different TV series and one multi-episode role in a minor Disney series. The role may end up being significant but it's nowhere near that at this time and it's not "multiple" as required by the criteria. There is no evidence that he meets criteria 2 or 3 of WP:ENT. To date his only claim to fame has been that he's the brother of Moisés Arias, If he wasn't, this article probably wouldn't exist AussieLegend (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 1 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aveyond series[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Aveyond series

Articles for deletion/Aveyond series (2nd nomination)

Aveyond series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A lot of the article is written like an instruction manual, and has a lot of WP:POV problems. Its not that I have a problem with these maker created RPGs, that has nothing to do with it, in fact that's far from the truth as I'm actually a huge fan of those programs. The thing is that, as I said before, the majority of the article consists of WP:NOT and WP:POV issues. Ryuku (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Notability was established in the last AfD. Any content issues the nominator has have to be taken to the talk page. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I withdraw the nomination, sorry I didn't read all the policies properly. I still suggest that the article be rewritten in a neutral point of view though. Ryuku (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:07, 31 July 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. A10 Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and fall of napolean[edit]

Rise and fall of napolean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is written like an essay, and completely unencyclopedic. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 02:00, 30 July 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trickshotting[edit]

Trickshotting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced essay about a neologism of questionable notability. Contested PROD. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism with unquestionable lack of notability. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 02:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Not only is this act quite common among shooter gamers, searching for 'Call of Duty trick shot' in YouTube (or anywhere else for that matter) comes up with tons of results meaning that this neologism is notable. Just ask anyone who has played Call of Duty (or other shooters) and they would know what Trickshotting is. Miguel AG (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference. The creator of the article is also a possible conflict of interest as the article mentions Faze clan as the progenitor of this act and the creator of the article is user:FaZeClan. Miguel AG, although if the article is notable, it still requires references, which it has none.Curb Chain (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neologism of very limited/specialised applicability, no apparent reliable third-party coverage (YouTube most certainly does not count) and very little chance of garnering any in the future. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I play Modern Warfare myself and I'm familiar with the term, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary for a slang term that is barely used anywhere outside of gaming and maybe pool. --Blackmane (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a good faith attempt to imply that a semi-used neologism in one area of the vast gaming community is a recognised notable and wide-spread term. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I had no success looking for reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. probably it is too soon for this term to have made it into the wider media world. The primary author may want to userfy this page until the term comes into general use. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands of results in Google for "Trickshotting" "Modern Warfare 2" [14]. I don't see any game review sites mentioning it though. Just forum and YouTube results. Try adding it to http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty_Wiki:Glossary You can even export the entire edit history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export and import it over there. Dream Focus 01:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:41, 4 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Bam[edit]

Aunt Bam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sure this character is notable (compared to Tyler Perry's other character, Madea). —Mike Allen 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has little to no usable info and this character is not notable at the present time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we have an article on ~~every sub species of Pokemon~~ all kinds of obscure fictional characters why not this? "Has to little" (sic) is an argument for slapping a stub tag on it, not for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Aunt Bam's Place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on deletion discussions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a joke (and the reason why initially it was "comment" rather than "keep"). Anyway, it's the title character of an upcoming play by a very notable writer/producer/director. Notable. As an aside there are apparently no established guidelines for fictional characters but this definitely does not fall under WP:NOT (which would be the closest to a relevant guideline here). In such a situation, all joking aside, I actually think it's quite appropriate to make comparison with standard practice on similar articles (Pokemons, Dr. Who characters, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the character is not notable now it should not have an article now. —Mike Allen 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The character has previously appeared in Madea's Big Happy Family. It's notable (at least by standards of current practice) now. In a couple of weeks it will get even more notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree that the character is notable because it has appeared in two stage plays. The article will only contain plot information (that's the only information available, there are no real world information for this character). But that's the way Wikipedia is going anyways, so who cares right? —Mike Allen 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, Madea's Big Happy Family started out as a "stage play" (is this bad?) but was made into a movie, Madea's Big Happy Family (film). And in fact one which made quite a bit of money (opinions differ as to its "true" aesthetic quality). If you're familiar with Tyler Perry's ouvre then you know that that's how it usually works; first a "stage play" then a movie.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the end, having an argument about whether it's notable is irrelevant - the only question is whether it has enough third-party sources discussing the character in depth to pass WP:GNG, and the answer is - no, it doesn't - in fact it doesn't have any. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Black Kite, clearly fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you guys actually click on the news link above? Again, the fact that the sources are not in the article is a reason to list it as a stub, not delete it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I looked at that. Every single one of those sources mentions the character as being in a production, or is just a cast list - not a single one is actually about the character. Hence no significant coverage. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm gonna pull another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here (which is perfectly legitimate since there is no established guideline for fictional characters -so it makes sense to compare this character to existing practice) and ask you to look at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) or more specifically here. Not that much difference in the amount/quality of sources is there? So why do obscure Dr. Who characters get their own Wikipedia articles but title characters from plays by one of the most financially successful modern playwrights don't? Or are you just saying that we should wait a month and then it will be okay for this article to be recreated? I don't see anyone putting up Aunt Bam's Place for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think you're not actually listening to what people are saying here; this is nothing to do with any other article. If you think the other one has problems, then stick an AfD tag on it. And Aunt Bam's Place doesn't (currently) meet WP:GNG either and should probably also have at least a merge tag on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fails just about everything. No GNG, no sourcing on the page, no assertion of notability anywhere to be seen. Even the source produced merely mentions her twice. Aunt Bam's Place should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 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 00:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variance map[edit]

Variance map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism. No evidence that anybody uses this term. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, or possibly made up graphing method.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

'Delete No sources provided to back notability or clarify meaning or context. Melcombe (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments' When you say "no one" is using this term, what community are you considering? Is it strictly academia or does it include business practitioners? If your sample is inclusinve of the latter, it certainly is being used presently.

No one has said "no one". "No evidence that anybody uses this term" means primarily that the article doesn't have evidence (citations, sources) that anyone uses the term. If anyone has used the term, then quickly add some sources (showing this usage) to the article. Melcombe (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term is widely used ([15], [16]); but to mean something quite different from the topic of this article. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 12:38, 3 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonín Honejsek[edit]

Antonín Honejsek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject has not met notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Xajaso (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about hockey, but doesn't the article state that he played for Detroit Red Wings, which is a major NHL team, so that should suffice for WP:NHOCKEY? Rymatz (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Honejsek played just two years of junior hockey in the Czech Republic and two years for Moose Jaw in the Western Hockey League. The article says he "tried out" for the Red Wings. NHL.com lists him among its "draft prospects," meaning he has the potential to play in the NHL in the not-too-distant future. If and when that happens, the article can be restored. — Michael J 03:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete per nom. Rymatz (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NHOCKEY, which says: "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". Now I'm not an expert in hockey, but the article says Honejsek played for a team in the Czech Extraliga, which is "the highest-level ice hockey league in the Czech Republic". That meets the notability requirements right?--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe he has played in the Extraliga yet. It looks like he is on the team for next season, but hasn't started playing yet. [17]. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 29 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, BusterD (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Rlendog; he'll be notable in a couple of months, let's save somebody the trouble of recreating the article then.joe•roe^t•c 22:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion based upon joe•roe's comment. Someone familiar with the Czech Extraliga should store this article on a user subpage. If/when Honejsek plays there (or in the NHL or other major league), simply start a new article and paste it in. I do not follow the Extraliga or else I would volunteer. — Michael J 02:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EdwardZhao is wrong that he has played in the Czech Extraliga. He is currently signed by HC Zlin to try-out for the team next season, but has not yet played a game. To see the future one must look into a crystal ball. Xajaso (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't played in the Extraliga yet. He probably will this season, as Zlín could use him. Best bet is to save it on a subpage, as suggested. Captain Courageous (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A lot could happen between now and the next season. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he plays in the Extraliga, or otherwise meets GNG or NHOCKEY, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 00:20, 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 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Magnen[edit]

Jean-Philippe Magnen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails notability of politicians. Being "adviser to the Mayor of Nantes", or "strongly opposing the planned Aéroport du Grand Ouest", or, for that matter, having been selected as a candidate in the coming regional elections, all this does not meet criteria, even though it ensures some coverage. Azurfrog (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He received over 13% of the vote in those elections. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 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) 00:03, 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]

Delete I can find a brief mention in a news article from May but that is not enough. An equivalent article on the French Wikipedia was deleted a fortnight ago on grounds of not meeting the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of other notable mentions aside from the French news article. I didn't find anything on both Yahoo! and Google aside from his official webpage (in French) and a Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD and Bearian. Maethordaer (talk) 21:51, 2 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 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tablog[edit]

Tablog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"a portmanteau word conjoining “tabloid” and “blog”". Not an establised neologism. The programming language of the same name appears to be more notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rymatz (talk) 22:23, 24 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]

Delete per WP:NEO. A Google search on the word returns "about 385,000 results", but none of the first few screenfuls seem to establish notability, many are simply occurrences of the term without discussing the term itself, a few refer to the programming language, and I couldn't figure out what some of them are. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 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.