Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 16

< 15 June	17 June >

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The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn by nominator and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lockport Township High School[edit]

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

This article has no references and has been tagged as such since November 2009. Wiki4chris (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Lack of references is not by itself a reason to delete an article, if the topic is a notable one. As a general rule, high schools can be assumed to be notable -- they tend to get covered in a variety of publications. Since this school has over 3,000 students and has existed for more than a century, it would be extraordinary for it not to have coverage to meet the General Notability Guideline. Additionally, the article lists several notable alumni, which is another indicator of notability. As for references, the article actually wasn't unsourced -- it just lacked inline referneces. The article is clearly based (at least in part) on the school's own website, which was linked, and there was a ref called out in the text by someone who didn't know how to format it. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per Orlady. All high schools as long as they really exist are inherently notable per established process. See WP:WPSCH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ever high school AfD since just about forever.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high schools are always notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, valid points by all. While I'd really like to see references, I think that Orlady summed it up best and causes me to totally rethink the issue. If possible, I'd like to withdraw my nomination for deletion. Thanks, Wiki4chris (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Moon[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant references to an artist by the name of Scarlet Hemfrey on google and it is either hoax or not sufficiently notable. Warfieldian (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLPProd.--v/r - T P 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing on google, looks like a hoax. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication of notability. Also, the article is extremely messy and clumsy, which includes what appears to be test material; even speedy deletion would be justified in this case. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Fired Up (The Saturdays song)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced and speculative article about a song that is yet to be released. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, definitely speculation. Its unconfirmed and complete rumours. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this song; only announcements for the group's upcoming tour of the same name. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (WP:CSD#G11/WP:CSD#A7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superne nitens[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be notable per the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Hope F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable club playing in a very minor league ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. I live down here and haven't heard of them, which sums up the notability of this team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:FOOTYN requirements, though if it gets more coverage like this it may meet WP:GNG in future. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable soccer club. --Carioca (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos featuring barefoot females[edit]

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

Not notable (except maybe as a reference list for foot fetishists to find wanking material, which isn't really our mandate here), not properly sourced, not particularly maintainable. Yer basic WP:NOT violation, really. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per article talk page.Sjö (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary list. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guess it's a goner. Thought with this List of music videos with censored explicit content, mine would be alright. Delete away. Might as well go into my edit history to find more deletable stuff.Civic Cat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with the distinction or not, that list at least has the rationale that something specific and potentially notable, such as an airplay ban or a debate in real media over whether the video's content was acceptable or not, happened because of the video's content — and while the list does have sourcing problems as currently constructed, it is generally sourceable that the response to a particular video's controversial content was notable in some way. In many cases, you can find coverage in real media which talks about the ban or the controversy as a social or cultural phenomenon in its own right. Your list, however, serves only as a directory list of content that doesn't have any real verifiability in reliable sources as being a notable feature of music videos — its only discernible purpose is as a consultation guide for foot fetishists. Which is not to say that there's anything wrong with that (hell, I have a bit of a thing for feet myself, albeit men's rather than women's) — but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for it. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING--this is a textbook non-encyclopedic cross categorization, because "barefoot females" is not a subset of "music videos" content that is either obviously distinct nor commented upon by reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fetish-related deletion discussions. Ma^t_chups 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as textbook WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix | Talk 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a random categorization of no navigational utility and no encyclopedic merit. Big words for Listcruft. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a Comedy Gold Barnstar for the nominator: "Not notable (except maybe as a reference list for foot fetishists to find wanking material, which isn't really our mandate here)..." Carrite (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy VRX[edit]

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

"A cook, a mechanic, and even a few years as electrician" that now does landscaping. In his spare time he produces instrumental tracks and organizes raves. Unable to find anything via a search. The one reference is a very short paragraph. Says he has "multiple tracks rated at #1" on two web sites. A search of the websites doesn't bring up his name. Has one track published on a independent label CD. Bgwhite (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per suspicion of advertisement/promotional reasons. *sarcasm* Wow! Because he's a cook, mechanic and a electrician, he deserves a Wikipedia page? I can't believe my eyes, that's the most awesome thing ever! *end sarcasm* The article doesn't hold anything useful, it just explains his profession. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmistakable self-written feel to this. Sourced to a dead link and a quasi-advertising blurb on a newspaper's site. Claim to fame is promoting a rave at which no one was arrested. Hmmm.. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 20:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aristide Razu[edit]

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

See the "multiple issues" tags, and note that the article only has reliable sources for the trivial facts marked by footnotes 1 and 2. The article is unlikely to improve; the major contributor, Aristiderazu (talk · contribs), a descendent of the general, has requested deletion both by blanking the page and by a message on his talk page. John of Reading (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Reluctant Keep. Per nom. Article is messy. Probably hard to find reliable sources even if someone wanted to. Plus, it's not clear subject is notable based on the assertions in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm finding it very difficult to understand how anyone could think that a general in command of a division in wartime is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article itself needs a large amount of work to get it to a good quality article, the quality of the article is not in question, but the notability of the subject of the article. assuming good faith regarding the few references to reliable sources provided, the subject passes WP:SOLDIER. As the subject is a historic general from a nation woes military history in a period that isn't very well covered in English sources, it maybe difficult to find additional reliable sources in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the article makes me dizzy. Are there any verifiable, reliable sources currently in the article that establish notability based on WP:SOLDIER (which, admittedly, isn't hard to satisfy)? If so, I would reluctantly change my vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three reliable sources provided, this one, appears to indicate that the subject was a general during a military conflict, commanding a Division. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to read, but I agree. Maybe we need another article on the other general mentioned on that page. :-) Although it doesn't go to notability, I remember when the controversy of the relative editing the article first arose, I tried to make sense of what the Razu article says in conjunction with other articles discussing some of the same battles, for example, Romania during World War I. There appeared to be conflicting statements in the articles, and given the age of the sources and the language difficulties associated with reading the sources, I just threw my hands up in the air. It does relate back to the mess, though, raised by John, which if technically not a reason to delete an article, will probably leave this article out there, mess included. Still, I'll change my vote to Keep, but I believe that if the consensus is to keep the article, it would be appropriate to remove all unsourced material from the article, even if it reduces it to a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of the article, is always recommended, especially given venerability of text. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Our guideline on the topic says that general officers are usually considered notable, and this one commanded a division in combat. Is anyone here arguing that we should delete Clarence_R._Huebner, for one example? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 20:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Code: Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Commons[edit]

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

No references and no assertion of notability. RJFJR (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent coverage for this book product satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH has not been shown. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and no reviews have been demonstrated to indicate notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Yussuf[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, and I found no sources on Google other than self-published sources. The article also fails to cite any references other than the school's own website. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we keep high schools for the reasoning given in the essay WP:NHS. Malaysian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence and a dearth of Google sources does not mean that reliable sources don't exist. We need to await the result of local searches to avoid systemic bias. Such articles need improving not deleting thus is the way we build the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, WP:SCHOOL, which says that WP:ORG must be met for schools does trump WP:NHS. High schools are not automatically kept just because of WP:NHS Inks.LWC (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the consensus at every AfD discussion about a high school in the last few years has been that high school articles are kept for the reasons stated in WP:NHS. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then perhaps you should nominate WP:NHS to become a policy and more than just an essay. Until then, WP:ORG trumps WP:NHS. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is just a guideline developed to avoid articles on inconsequential organisations such as my local Indian restaurant (a very fine restaurant I would add) that have no wider significance. High schools OTOH invariably have wide impact in their regions in addition to their impact on thousands of their students. Experience shows that given time, plenty enough reliable sources can be found. However, in contrast to anglophone high schools, and despite what is said below, reliable sources on the Internet on Malay schools are sadly sparse and local searches are needed. Be that as it may, I have added enough sources to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully agree with Inks.LWC's views about the notability of schools generally. In this case there are some independent sources (eg this) but they do not amount to the significant coverage that ought to be required of all articles on this project, school or not. The notion that Malaysian schools "traditionally" don't get coverage on the internet is complete bullshit: I say that as someone who has created over 100 Malaysian articles and knows that just about every single Malaysian newspaper -- both current and archived articles -- is freely accessible online. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - putting on one side the tone of this comment, there is a world of difference between Malaysian newspapers being online, and them choosing to put their coverage of schools online. TerriersFan (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth would cause you to think that? They think their coverage of schools is specially valuable and shouldn't be freely available? As I said, most newspapers (including The Star and Utusan dump everything they write online. You're just making it all up, aren't you? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your source for the statement:

"They think their coverage of schools is specially valuable and shouldn't be freely available? As I said, most newspapers (including The Star and Utusan dump everything they write online."

It would also assist if you familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, it's an article about a high school. It also doesn't even attempt to establish notability beyond that, and my search (FWIW, I'm very familiar with East Asian and Southeast Asian topics, and Mkativerata is right to call bullshit above) didn't turn up anything beyond Mkativerata's. Schools are organizations; I think they have to demonstrate why they're notable as well. Because this one can't be redirected to a school district or town, it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - " Because this one can't be redirected to a school district or town," is incorrect since redirection to Batu Gajah, where it is already mentioned, is obviously an option. In my experience (which is extensive) of high schools is that they invariably attract attention in reliable sources unless Malaysia is an exception? TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we could then redirect St. Luke's School (Connecticut) to New Canaan on the basis that it's there; however, it's a private school (and secular, the name is somewhat misleading), so that wouldn't really make sense. It's not affiliated with the town, it just happens to be there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice to redirect not only those schools that are individually non-notable to their settlement but also parks, significant buildings and all sorts of other features. If this is not considered suitable for Malay schools please suggest another way of organising information about them? TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the long-standing consensus that we keep articles on verifiable high schools, as documented at WP:OUTCOMES#Schools and for the reasons explained at WP:NHS. If that consensus is to be challenged then I would suggest that challenge should first be made in discussions of articles about schools in Western anglophone countries, to avoid giving the impression that any systemic bias is involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – government secondary schools matter and are significant subjects worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This one also meets WP:GNG. Rothorpe (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it says it's a school; WP:Notability (high schools) is an essay and WP:Notability (schools) is a failed attempt at a guideline, whereas WP:ORG is not; as I said above, it doesn't even attempt to establish anything beyond the fact that it exists and is a school. Organizations have to receive significant secondary coverage to be included here; there is none in this case. If it were a public school, we could simply redirect it to the town's article, but since it's not affiliated with any town or significant organization that option doesn't exist. Ergo it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why does this article need to be deleted? This school does really exist. The current Sultan of Perak was attended this school during his childhood. User:60.50.212.115 put this comment on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)— 60.50.212.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't know why does this article need to be deleted. This school does exist for real and it is one of the oldest school in Malaysia. Plus, it is also the pride of Batu Gajah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylarius (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Comment copied from talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT for further explanation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The school is loacated in Batu Gajah, Perak and it is very significant to the town. It was found in 1907 and sure it is historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylarius (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Copied from talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)</ref> — Sylarius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - a significant school on which we should have a page. The article needs to be developed further but for now meets WP:ORG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by TerriersFan which now meet WP:GNG. Kudos to TerriersFan for their research.--v/r - T P 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auctigo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Is this notable? Reichsfürst (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable, and well-sourced. This is a very good idea of saving dead miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.170.64 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has few other edits on Wikipedia and all but one of those are to the article in question MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a good idea or not does not establish notability. Reichsfürst (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is marginally notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askedcar (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has no other edits on Wikipedia MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Askedcar is clearly a meatpuppet...Reichsfürst (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. I Join askedcar. Every where it is green revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geonew (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has no other edits on Wikipedia MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article please ,it is valuable info.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.32.130 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has not edited on Wikipedia since October 2009 MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely self-sourced, except for the government sources, which are unrelated to the company and thus violates WP:SYNTH. And whether it is a good idea or not is what is up for discussion here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see where the site meets WP:WEB at this time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhere, the Hormel CEO's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a minute...Reichsfürst (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, _now_ I get it, Bugs! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just an advertisement for the website. MarnetteD | Talk 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Top 3 pages of Google search are nothing but the name's registration on many popular Social Media sites using the same drivel over and over again. I have excised 5 links that go to the companys site that masqueraded as references from the article. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks to be a group targeting.It is not a bad idea........... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcatuy (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has no other edits on Wikipedia MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part about "looks to be a group targeting" is spot-on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly promotional. Fails WP:GNG. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established, and the article appears to be a thinly veiled advertisement for the company (the registration is free "reference" is especially spammy). - SudoGhost™ 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looks like an interesting business. Interesting != notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/San2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reichsfürst (talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per G11 as spam, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was declined. Is there anyway that this can be closed per SNOW so we don't have to put up with more socking? The only keep votes are by confirmed socks with the possible exception of the IP from India. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the speedy was declined, and there's a reasonable certainty that one of the Keep !votes came from someone outside the sock/meat farm, the WP:DELETE standard is to allow the AfD to run for the full seven days. I agree that it probably should go as a WP:SNOW closure, though. I suppose a previously-uninvolved admin could WP:IAR and snow-close it, were they so inclined. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the puppetry, I'd recommend that this AfD be played 100% by the book so that (as noted on the CSD decline) when the article gets re-created we can use CSD:G4 (Re-creation in contravention of AfD discussion) we can stand on absoluteley firm ground. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Good call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The socks seem to have disappeared, as they know the game is up. Best to roast this spam for the full 7 days, as per procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMMMMM roasted spam. My thanks to everyone for their replies. It doesn't matter how long I've edited here there is always something new to learn and you all have helped me do that today. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article.Modification required>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.169.254 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — 82.37.169.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm thinking we can add this IP to the list above. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. Same ISP as 82.37.170.64 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and geolocates within a few miles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing is nearly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.198.53 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP that hasn't edited in 2 years comes in to make this comment? More laundry? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly" notable. That's a good one. The article creator "nearly" knows English. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "nearly notable" anything like the fact that Spam is "nearly" like meat?MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article.Have more discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.133.189 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another one. Like fish in a barrel...Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last two are from the same ISP: Cwie. Likely meatpuppets, or someone going in through a proxy and using a playground account. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to Uship!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.226.73 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 June 2011 On behalf of Hasteur (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 64.38.226.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Clearly just marketing spam. Fails any test of notability. MrMarmite (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of obvious socks or suspected Hormel meat puppets so far[edit]

San2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Article creator.
82.37.170.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Probably the article creator.
82.37.169.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Askedcar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geonew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.93.32.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - From India instead of UK, could maybe possibly be legit.
Tomcatuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPI concludes that the 4 registered users are all the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, a checkuser has confirmed that they are the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several more likely IP meatpuppets since that list was drawn up. I see that "keep" reasons now include "It is not a bad idea", "Every where it is green revolution", "This is a very good idea of saving dead miles", "Have more discussions?", "Similar to Uship" "Modification required" and "It looks to be a group targeting". Pretty persuasive, eh? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Owens[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player who is currently active in an unaffiliated, independent league. His article lacks sufficient references and as a player, he has done nothing statistically notable in the minors to merit an article (though 200 home runs is pretty impressive). Alex (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BASEBALL/N and I can't find anything that shows significant coverage that required to pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable sources that cover the subject directly and in detail. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Gonzaga[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; no gnews hits for her acting (some local media mentions of success in student speech competitions circa 2000.) Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page needs to go. It seems the creator of the page is a fan of The Morning After and has also created a stub for Brian Kimmet. As the editor of The Morning After page, I have found nothing to make either Brian or Ginger notable in an encyclopedic way. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Agreed - delete. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you and the merry little band of shifty, faceless buereucrats to know that I won't go down without a fight. I stand for FREEDOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping for you guys. In your pursuit of ascent on this buereaucratic ladder you have lost your ways. Who is to determine what is notable or not notable? Is the simple action of taking a breath or blinking an eye notable? An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!---Yours Truly, Very Concerned

Plus you are NOT a true fan of the Morning After — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for bureaucrat... can I get a bureaucrat in here? Preferably one missing a face. And with masterful powers of deletion. Knowledge227, encyclopedic content must be notable, which means a major impact on human events that people have taken note of. It must be reliably sourced, which is to say if a verifiable reference cannot be found to vet the subjects notability, it is still not notable. Brian Kimmet is very talented. So is my sister, who's a nurse. Neither of them are notable... yet. They're just talented. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I want to hold the people down...especially when they can't source their article, and the subject doesn't meet WP:N. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Kreuz[edit]

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

Cute story of a traveller mistaking Bangor for San Francisco. Classic case of one event. Apart from the original event, no notability whatsoever. Crusio (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article to make it less a 'cute story' and more demonstrative of Kreuz' status as a figure of modern folklore. I've also demonstrated that his notability didn't come only from the original event - his mistake - but the playing out of his celebrity, which lasted a number of years, and through a series of events, and still lasts as legend. Its even the subject of a recorded ballad by a folk singer. Kreuz remains a very well-known figure in Maine - much better-known than most of the figures I've written about for Wikipedia - and his story still re-surfaces in national media when recounting airline diversions.

I also tried to better convey in this latest version that, when strung out over a multi-year period, the story is less cute than poignent, cautionary, and maybe tragic (we don't know what ultimately happened to Kraus once he lost his job). I felt it important to add those last parts because the legend of Erwin Kreuz, as re-told in the 21st century, ignores the down-side of his celebrity. This was not as widely reported as the funny beginning and the feel-good middle. I'm aiming, in other words, for a more definite 'Story of Erwin Kreuz' than the one that remains in circulation, and think Wikipedia should be the platform for it.

Thanks for your original comment though, which challenged me to make the article better.Buskahegian (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - not notable
Tentative Keep. Buskahegian has now made a good case for the lasting notability of this story. It may be that the story, rather than the person, is the notable thing here, but if so that would at most suggest a possible rename of this article, not its deletion. However, it would improve the article and help to verify this conclusion if Buskahegian could please add on-line links the articles you've cited (where available), which among other things will assist other editors in considering the notability of the subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Arxiloxos' suggestion I've improved the article by adding on-line links to most of the cited articles. The last section, arguing that Kreuz' notability outlived his original celebrity and passed into folklore (in this case the remembrance and occasional fictionalization of dramatic events long past), has also been augmented by more examples.Buskahegian (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree about "lasting notability" having been shown. At best, this goes for the story, not the person. I could live with a short version of this story being merged into some Bangor-related article. --Crusio (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is just known for one event, but the event has gained sufficiently enduring coverage that sufficient notability has been demonstrated.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaner selfbeskikking[edit]

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

A non-English language article which appears to fail WP:SOAP as an attempt to recruit for a cause, and which is irredeemably non-encyclopedic. To the extent that it intends to encourage the creation of a "content hub" related to the topic, this material may be a valid talk page comment somewhere, but it doesn't belong in article space.

Google translation of article content

This page will be dedicated to the topic of "Afrikaner self-determination". It has recently started and any positive and purposeful contributions are welcome. The primary objective can be summarized as follows:

1. Creating and maintaining an archive content evulerende dedicated to any study, experience and general information relating to the title.

2. To serve as a hub with all other related sources (links) currently exist on the Internet and elsewhere.

3. The endeavor to abide by a known general purpose among Africans who are interested in the aspect of African Freedom. In other words, the identification of the "General Delers" among Africans and their campaign for freedom. Related to this is the objective of a priority hierarchy to bring to twist and close vision and mechanistic assumptions at work.

4. To the struggle of Africans to the world stage and to place at the same time, Africans aware of the larger international arena that currently affect - and in the future act on any endeavor to self-determination.

5. The various perspectives and approaches, whether politically whether private, to examine and weigh against each other.

Delete as nominator. Thparkth (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as blatant spam. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kimmet[edit]

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

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

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

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

Only source is IMDB, cannot find other sources. Notability in question. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely concur. It seems the creator of the page is a fan of The Morning After and has also created a stub for Ginger Gonzaga. As the editor of The Morning After page, I have found nothing to make either Brian or Ginger notable in an encyclopedic way. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am tired of the faceless bureacracy that is threatening to destroy everything that Wikipedia stands for. It used to be in this country that a man, a dream, and some hard work was enough. What would the proprieters of the American Dream think if they had to find "credible sources". So in conclusion, DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources which provide verifiable evidence of notability are "what Wikipedia stands for". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some sort of "American Dream" manifesto. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never heard Jimmy Wales expound on the topic, my friend! Carrite (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: First Amendment. And you know what, in the wild there is no such thing as a "Bearcat". I'm tired of having to deal with people who can post this stuff in a dark room. Oh, the times they are a changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were under the impression that the American constitution held water at Wikipedia, because it doesn't. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 13:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you and the merry little band of shifty, faceless beureucrats to know that I won't go down without a fight. I stand for FREEDOM.Knowledge227 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Ooh fancy signature SO STOP AUTOSIGNING ME[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Unsourced fragment of a snippet of a short piece. No sources = crushing by the faceless machine... BTW, does anybody have the username ManBearPig? That would be a good one... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, Carrite is a wierd username and ManBearPig would be even worse. Two, I would like an audience with Jimmy Wales on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad for you jaded editors. Too obsessed with code and regulations you have lost sight about what Wikipedia is really about. So cut the trash and answer my questions. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for bureaucrat... can I get a bureaucrat in here? Preferably one missing a face. And with masterful powers of deletion. Knowledge227, encyclopedic content must be notable, which means a major impact on human events that people have taken note of. It must be reliably sourced, which is to say if a verifiable reference cannot be found to vet the subjects notability, it is still not notable. Brian Kimmet is very talented. So is my sister, who's a nurse. Neither of them are notable... yet. They're just talented.ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping for you guys. In your pursuit of ascent on this buereaucratic ladder you have lost your ways. Who is to determine what is notable or not notable? Is the simple action of taking a breath or blinking an eye notable? An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!---Yours Truly, Very Concerned

Are we plagiarizing Tolkien now Mr. Knowledge? Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to even cite my comments now ((Mr.)) Karl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your move well-read buereucrats--Very Concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs a faceless bureacrat who wants nothing more than to hold down a man's dream of course. Well that and no sources. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys are simply hilarious. Except for Mr. Roving Ambassador. Taking the words of a impassioned man and turning them against him. How can you sleep at night? Hey I've got an idea you guys should write for SNL #PSYCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, Mr. Knowledge, here's the deal. Getting hauled to AfD is like getting a ticket when you drive your car. Some cops are jackasses, some are reasonable sorts, but the fact is, your article is in traffic court. At Wikipedia, articles aren't cautioned or fined, they're either given the death penalty or set free. It's a tough neighborhood. Singing Bob Dylan songs or railing against the demons or Mordor ain't gonna get the piece on the judge's good side. You've gotta scramble like fast to find two or three significant independent sources indicating this article topic is encyclopedia-worthy. So get your Google on, brother. Just to be a good sport, I'll help now. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a shitload of hits on this dude, he's probably notable in WP terms even though finding three things that pass muster is proving to be time consuming. Here's number one: A BIO OF KIMMET FROM NBC.COM. Carrite (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I convinced myself already. Delete vote stricken. Now working on the page... Carrite (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His profile on the web page of a show he actually appeared in does not constitute coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not people. –MuZemike 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little crystal-bally, but given his corpus and the forthcoming lead role in the film P.O.V. it seems this guy does indeed merit a Wikipedia bio. I'm having a hell of a time digging up another reliable source or two, but I've satisfied myself at least that there should be material out there. The bio is looking a little better... Carrite (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough reliable sources except for Twitter and Facebook page, IMDb and official website. If this article wants to become epanded, it needs good sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Lamia. v/r - T P 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia in popular culture[edit]

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

Rather straightforward: obviously non-notable and unsourced list of trivia. Unfortunately, PROD was removed (PROD reason was "Unsourced collection of trivia violating WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.", de-PROD reason was "prod ... bad idea, so removing tag, but take it to a real AfD"), so now we have to go through the hassle of an AfD. Crusio (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the place whence it came. Cutting out some of the cruft wouldn't hurt, either. Deor (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge the relevant, verifiable, and notable material whence it came. Since some users may find its deletion controversial, taking it here is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back selectively what can be reliably sourced. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. Article was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G11 by User:Ioeth. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gestione della diversità[edit]

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

Article in Italian talking (pure OR) about diversity in the workspace and how it affects productivity. Spam link to the editors website. Alexf^(talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, ditto. I don't know much Italian, but even I can tell that this begins with an "In today's busy world of technology" passage: In un mercato sempre più globalizzato..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Heres a link to the google translation to get the gist of it [1]--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research, and reads like an essay. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Best[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE#Rugby league by playing in the Super League. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough, keep. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year of entrance exam[edit]

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

Author contested WP:PROD. The article reads exactly like a self-help manual. There are no facts, but simply tips on how to handle exam stress. No sources, nothing. As far as I can tell it blatantly fails WP:NOTGUIDE. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely goes against WP:NOTHOWTO, and even if the page were to be completely rewritten, it would overlap with Entrance examination. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per GorillaWarfare. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per policies WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTHOWTO. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Akin[edit]

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

Former Minor League Baseball player. Akin played only 6 years before retiring after 2009. Fails Wikipedia:MLB/N. Adam Penale (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable minor leaguer. Alex (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand how it was determined that he met GNG during the first AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmastime spirit of good will? Too much egg nog??? Carrite (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Career minor league baseball player with unremarkable career. Poorly sourced. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (I'm just kidding of course.) Delete - non-notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hounslow[edit]

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

This is a BLP of a person for whom I could find no reliable sources. I suspect it's an autobiography of User:Hounslow23, and it has been userfied to him once already. He has moved it back into the mainspace. My recommendation is now delete and salt. —S Marshall T/C 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Claims in the article wouldn't make Hounslow notable even if they could be verified and I was unable to find so much as a mention of Hounslow in any reliable source. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:AUTOBIO. also could not find sources [2]. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per questionable notability. I didn't get any hits on Yahoo and Google for him. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete can't find any decent refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and appears to be an autobiography. Orderinchaos 04:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doumbi Amamadou[edit]

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

Player not played in a professional league. Delusion23 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and he has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Records[edit]

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

Article without sources since 2007 N^oformation ^Talk 10:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what POLICY does this warrant deletion under? Your argument is per WP:NOEFFORT. Note that AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I ran into this page because I had previously tagged Big Time Records (United States) with a CSD (once for G11 and once for A7) and the author of the US version linked to it from this article. Finding that the US version was not notable I tried to verify the contents of this article but didn't find anything. So to answer your question, I should have written "fails WP:V." Realistically, I admit I should have prod'd first, my mistake. N^oformation ^Talk 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It may be a challenge to find on-line sources to verify all the details, but Big Time Records was, in fact, a significant independent record company at one time. Here's a couple of Billboard articles[3][4] and a profile of one of the founders from the Sydney Morning Herald[5] to start.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – According to Ian McFarlane, the label released material by a number of notable Australian artists, Air Supply A, Hoodoo Gurus B, New Race C, Jon Stevens D, Painters and Dockers D and Radio Birdman E. Magnus Holmgren's Australian Rock Database additionally lists The Beasts of Bourbon F, The Go-Betweens G, New Christs H and The Scientists I. The article certainly needs more work including refs but should not be deleted for lack of notability or for failing verifiability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with above comments. first page of Aus rock database / google search here shows many notable Australian artists/bands released on this label. Kathodonnell (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I made a mistake in conflating this Big Time Records with the one in the US. If there is a way to rescind an AFD I'm willing to do so. N^oformation ^Talk 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep whilst no longer in existence this label in its time was important in the development of the Australian independent music scene. It is a notable label & should be retained, expanded if possible. Dan arndt (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sobha City[edit]

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

Reasons: Article is about a real-estate project in Thrissur, India. Not notable under WP:GNG. No detailed coverage in third party reliable sources. Moreover, it is just a residential area without any significance whatsoever. Had placed proposal for deletion which was removed by an IP user, however reason given was " have edited out ‘first gated community’ fame from the article. Even removed promotional tone from the article". This user did not address the concerns raised by me Shekure (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Tier III city problem The said project has been widely covered by all kinds of publications across Malayalam and English. And it has been one of biggest integrated township in Kerala, including a shopping mall. When you say it is just a real estate project I don’t agree with you. Thrissur is Tier III city. Show me a Tier III city in India where you can see a project like this, with a man made lake and shopping mall. Think globally and act locally. If it has been in Mumbai or Bangalore the story will be different.

114.143.76.2 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNot enough for notability still Please point to links of coverage in any Malayalam or English newspapers from Kerala, which can be considered as reliable third party resources. Other than coverage of announcements by Sobha group. Otherwise, it is still not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Having a shopping mall and a man made lake does not make it any special or any more than a real-estate project. I have nothing against Sobha city or Thrissur. My contention is only that Wikipedia is not a place for this. Shekure (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

The article has been covered in multiple reliable sources like The Hindu, The Business Line, The Business Standard, The Economic Times etc. Some of the links.

1) http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-08-31/news/28416891_1_township-project-villas-sobha-developers (The Economic Times)
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/29/us-india-summit-sobha-idUSTRE68S0JG20100929 (Reuters)
3) http://www.financialexpress.com/news/story/199190/(Financial Express)
4) http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/02010132/Real-estate-cos-diversify-into.html (LiveMint)
5) http://www.equitybulls.com/admin/news2006/news_det.asp?id=39225
6) http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/printArticle.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=148829&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22

Comment I'm leaving this to others after this comment.

I checked the articles: 1) Economic Times - Nothing other than a description of real estate project and that lot of people are buying it 2) Reuters - No mention of Sobha city 3) Financial Express - Sponsored article disclaimer 4) Livemint -One line about Sobha city having ayurvedic spas 5) Equity bulls - coverage of announcement of the project by company to the shareholders 6) Gulf times- again coverage of announcement of project

The residential project is still under construction and the article would serve as nothing but an advertisement. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(geography), this belongs to the category Populated places without legal recognition. The non-official information on the project is trivial and merely contain description of the amenities. After the project is completed, the information on it can be added to the page of Thrissur or to that of Sobha Developers, if it is notable then.

---

On a final note, the same IP user who have posted the above comments from 2 different accounts (User talk:124.124.211.93, User:114.143.76.2) also seems to have created the page using the account User Talk:Jpullokaran. Please stick to one account while posting and it is fair to mention that you created the page.

Shekure (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Wise[edit]

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

I declined a CSD:G10 speedy on this, but it does seem like a strange page. This person worked for a company which was investigated for its MLM sales practices and went bust ~~(but that company doesn't have an article)~~. Then he went to work for a NASDAQ quoted company, and the section on that just has excessive detail of his salary and stockholding. At the least, I don't think notability has been established - there are lots of sources, but I can't see any independent sources taking about him. And at worst, the article seems slanted towards disparagement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've now removed the details of his salary and stockholding, as they were undue private detail, and also unsourced (the source given was dead) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally listed it for Speedy delete as I consider it little more than a coat-rack attack piece, trying to push a certain POV about his current company based on his prior involvements. The same issue (involving the same editors) is occurring on that article Juice Plus and has been - listed on the BLP Noticeboard. As per WP:BLP standards need to be high for this article and they currently are not. I've been unable to find other independent RS sources to determine notability. --Icerat (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I was going to change my vote to "Keep" after the considerable number of new references added, however after checking through them I discovered none of these new references actually discuss the subject of the article, which is what is necessary to determine notability. The various SEC forms are not independent coverage. The Business Week profile is the only independent RS coverage of the man.--Icerat (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be assumed that Icerat simply forgot to mention what I wrote previously? Namely -- "and is featured prominently in this article in Inc Magazine which explained that Wise was responsible for product formulation while at USAI.[6]"

Umm, have you actually read the article? If so, we have wildly differing views of what "featured prominently" means. I'd call it "mentioned in passing". --Icerat (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help those who haven't looked up the Inc Magazine source, it says "Fisher, John Wise -- who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology -- and the advisory board were all responsible for formulating United Sciences's products". There is no other mention of Wise. "Featured prominently"? No. "Responsible for product formulation"? Not solely. It pays to check the source! --TraceyR (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Regardless of whether it is true that Mr Wise had personal responsibility for unlawful or unethical practices in his various employments, and I have no idea, we should not permit hinting at it in this way. If the sources were sufficiently robust, eg a criminal conviction and not a mere allegation, saying so might pass if he were otherwise notable, but would probably fail on WP:CRIMINAL or WP:EVENT anyway. --AJHingston (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is marginally notable, but notable nonetheless IMO. First, regarding the comment "This person worked for a company which was investigated for its MLM sales practices and went bust (but that company doesn't have an article)", the article in question does in fact exist United Sciences of America, Inc.. Secondly, Wise was featured prominently in regard to his connection with USAI in this article[7] (which had been inexplicably deleted by Icerat) and in this article with respect to both USAI and Juice Plus.[8] He also has an executive bio on Businessweek[9], is mentioned as a CRN award recipient[10], has numerous research publications (mostly on Juice Plus; see reference list), and is featured prominently in this article in Inc magazine which explained that Wise was responsible for product formulation while at USAI.[11] I think there is clearly enough material to establish notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the United Sciences of America, Inc. link - not really sure why I failed to find that. New links might make a significant difference too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article RIR refers to as "inexplicably deleted" is a self-published article on a self-published website, and as per WP:BLPSPS has no place in a biography, though RIR continues to inexplicably dispute that "interpretation" of WP:BLP. It certainly doesn't contribute to notability. Being an author on published academic papers does not itself make oneself notable, (otherwise someone needs to start writing one one me and lots of other eminently unnotable people! ). In the Inc article he's mentioned once in passing. That leaves us with the businessweek executive bio and the CRN award. Not sure if that quite makes the grade, perhaps merge in to the United Sciences or Juice Plus article? --Icerat (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I come to this from outside, and am aware that I am wandering into the no man's land between two warring groups. I can see that Dr Wise is, or has been, engaged in activities that I just don't think would be possible on this side of the Atlantic, at least not on any significant scale. Our regulatory systems are apparently much stronger. But I am still struggling to see how he meets Wikipedia's notability standard. Look at it this way. If this article had been written by somebody supportive of his viewpoint, or at least the products he is involved in marketing, and his notability were challenged here, it would be said that his published papers fall well short of the standard for WP:ACADEMIC, that his part in the various companies he worked for was routine, that the business press mentions are little more than in passing when discussing the plans of his employers, and that the 'award' lacked substance. When I think of the much more distinguished careers of people who are rejected as not notable, I do have to ask why there is such a desire to include him. --AJHingston (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the improvements to the article made by Rhode Island Red, I think it's quite clear that the guy is notable. And it's definitely not an attack page just because of that one comment. Silver seren^C 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject is not notable. Although as RS/N has determined, Barratt's publication is not SPS. Does it violate BLP, probably not since it's published out there. In any case, the subject is a minor footnote and can be merged with Juice Plus. Shot info (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be completely closed to the idea of merging; however, the Wise article was originally spun out from the Juice Plus article quite a while back by Elonka (who commented below). At the time, I thought the subject was marginally notable enough for a separate article, but just marginally. If Wise's CV was a bit more mundane, I'd probably lean towards the POV that he is not notable, but his involvement with USAI is a pretty big deal, as are the insider connections with Juice Plus, a controversial and widely criticized product. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (noting that I created this article in 2007). The individual is notable, and the article well-sourced. Though I'll also say that I'm distressed by the continuing disputes at the Juice Plus article, which are again overflowing to other parts of the project. --El on ka 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable (he did have a profile on Forbes website after all) and not all the information in the article is dependent on just Bennett.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though a majority favor keeping the article. At what point do we close the discussion and remove the deletion tag from the article? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a clear WP:SNOW, which this isn't, after 7 days (or longer if necessary). And it's not done by majority vote (which is currently only 4:3 anyway), it's done by consensus, which requires the closing admin to evaluate people's comments and not just count votes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Boing said. These AfD discussions are pretty common, and they are definitely discussions, not votes, though sometimes new editors are confused on the difference. There are hundreds of these discussions going on at any one time, and then administrators review the discussions and make a determination of consensus, based not on votes, but the strength of the policy arguments. For more info, see WP:AFD. --El on ka 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you both for clarifying. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 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! 18:58, 7 June 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization shut down is probably notable, but this looks and feels like an attack piece. I don't see compelling sourcing showing indicating that this is a notable individual outside of his previous employment. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find it hard to understand this article. It may be an attack piece. Where there is doubt, delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Thursday F.C.[edit]

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

A bunch of guys who play 5-a-side football down their local leisure centre. Not notable at all. Previously PROD'ed but (surprise surprise) PROD removed without explanation or improvement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so non-notable, it's almost stupid that we cannot speedy delete (I know, PROD'd before) Zanoni (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Great stuff but so obviously non-notable. Timbouctou (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as far away from meeting WP:N as it's possible to get. What's concerning is that the article has been around since April. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting WP:ATH or WP:GNG. Charlton Pathetic and Sheffield Thursday are great names though... Hack (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all Tashif (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable as it gets. Speedy needs to be adjusted for nonsense like this. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, but are they really professional? Would we ever have an article on a 5 a side team? If so what criteria would we use except of course the GNG? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on indoor soccer and futsal teams - example. Commensense would say that they'd have to be at least semi-pro to get the sort of media coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but the claim is that this club is professional, not even semi-pro, so if that is established, there might be sources that have noticed it. I would not know how to find out whether the claim is accurate. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it from me, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a 5-a-side team playing in the Thursday night league down at their local leisure centre is professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable soccer club. --Carioca (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.R. Fussell[edit]

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

I do no see any notability of the person mentioned neither are there any references given, does not pass the criterion of being included in the Wikipedia. Tashif (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. His achievements appear to be 1. graduating from Oxford University, 2. playing once at the Wimbledon tennis championships as a qualifier where he lost in the second round, 3. being proprietor of and headmaster from 1940-54 of a small school for boys aged up to 13. --AJHingston (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added details of DR Fussell is that he was mentioned in the All England Lawn Tennis Championship, 1929, as having been in the second round and although there was a Wikipedia link to his name there was no information about him so I added it. The school he was Headmaster of was not 'a small school' but one of the finest prep schools in England, Southey Hall Prep School so please get your facts right before making such statements. The school ran from 1926 to 1955 and I had intended to add a link to it later on.

I shall defer to others on whether appearance in the second round at Wimbledon in 1929, when it was an amateur championship, meets Wikipedia notability criteria in WP:Notability (sports). It is possible. The headmastership is more problematic. Normally, schools for this age group do not qualify for an entry in Wikipedia and I understood that the roll was about 70 which in Wikipedia terms is very small. However, as there is at least one history of the school on line (the existence of a webpage and fuller PDF version must count as a single source) then if there is at least one other account discussing the school in detail it might be possible to justify an article on the school. Headteachers do not normally qualify for an article in their own right, though, and the only event of note I found during his headship concerns the circumstances of his leaving which I think should be treated as unverified and not notable under the WP:EVENT rule and others. It might be difficult to omit it altogether in an article if only to make clear that his departure was precipitate. I had avoided mentioning this previously, but since you felt that his headmastership was significant I did feel that I had to draw attention to that aspect since others need to consider the nature of the notability. --AJHingston (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Too little coverage to show notability under any of WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Holland[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I second that opinion, does not pass WP:BIO at all Tashif (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan M. Gregory[edit]

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

No third party references in more than a year. Google search fails to find any third party coverage. No real notability claim in article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No sources added in a year of asking is enough. This guy just isn't notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the biography of a climate change scientist. I'm not going to delve into the very real question of the subject's individual notability at this moment... I just bring this fact to the body's attention, since this is a topic over which there has been bitter edit warring at WP. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that this challenge should be weighed on the standards set for academics. I add that Gregory seems to be widely published in the scientific press as an expert on climate change modeling. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF#1. The Web of Science lists more than 100 articles that have been cited over 5000 times, leading to an h-index of 33. (I have weeded out some articles by somebody with the same name working on particle physics, but only did that in the first 40 publications, to have an exact h and approximate number of total cites). On many of the highly cited articles he is either first or last author. Don't know which "side" of the climate debate he's on, but notable he is without any doubt. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from high citability of Gregory's work, noted by Crusio, Gregory was one of the lead authors of IPCC Third Assessment Report and IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - that is the stuff for which IPCC got the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that the subject is usually referred to as "Jonathan Gregory", without the middle initial: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Stupendous cites on GS (although in a highly cited subject) pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
keep - passes WP:PROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for meeting WP:GNG but not WP:NRU.. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hirschberg[edit]

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

fails WP:NRU which clearly states that pre professional era of rugby, players must meet WP:GNG. although over 100 years ago, could not find anything in gbooks or google. maybe if he played a few tests but 1 test and no evidence of coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are references to him in the digitalised newspapers in the National Library's excellent Trove service (eg, for 1905: [12]), but nothing in-depth Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (again) you have completely misread the guidelines. It says "A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she: Has appeared in at least one test match". So one is enough. Trove is not complete and does not cover all papers and relies on optical character recognition which is still often very poor, especially for long or unusual names. The espnscrum.com link is sufficient to prove that he played a test. The-Pope (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have completely misread the guidelines, it is all under a heading of professional sportspeople. Reread it, early day rugby players who were not professional (rugby didn't turn professional till 1990) cannot meet the listed criteria. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you should also note that for the most part in the early days of rugby as a strictly amateur sport it was limited to people who had earnt enough to pursue it as a "hobby" and could get time off work. For that reason, selection to teams was based on people's availability (of course they had to have some ability) but this never guaranteed national sides were the strongest. This is in fact one major reason rugby league was born, in order to financially compensate players who missed work. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I also searched on Trove here.
it seems he was in the winning NSW team for "The first inter-State Rugby game in Western Australia" there's a photo of him (& the team) here in Western Mail newspaper (Perth), and an article which seems to be a blow by blow recount of the match here (sat 3 Aug 1907)
he's mentioned a few times (as mentioned above, some of his mentions have spaces/errors in his name due to the OCR if you're reading the text to the left).
there's a Sydney Morning Herald article about the Australian team for NZ here (12 Aug 1905)
a notice about Combined Country vs City team in SMH 16 June 1910 here.
a mention in the Broken Hill Barrier Miner newspaper 8 July 1917 article about Fighting Sportsman (seems to be a team for army/war - it talks about another player who seemed to have been a mate, so this is a small mention, might not count?) here (though, this is one issue I think perhaps WP suffers when it doesn't include things like this (perhaps as supplementary refs), as sometime in the future these little mentions can help piece together a life too).
& another from the West Australian (Perth) newspaper 10 August 1907 here. Qld vs NSW game - SMH 11 July 1910 here.

there's not in-depth coverage (as in a feature article only on him as the topic), but I think it might be ok for WP:GNG? it might not meet the "Significant coverage" part, but I'm not sure how much coverage was given to Rugby Union players at the time (eg did they have feature articles written about them).

also, this rubgy archive shows up in google results but I haven't had a chance to check it yet Kathodonnell (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

& fwiw (comment) after reading the articles, it does seem like he was a decent player. played in (winning) NSW state games & Aus team for NZ tour. & this article (1907), the writer says "It is practically certain that the Rugby Union will send a strong team to New Zealand next year". (this is the article he had a few mentions). basically I think we should keep it as it might be useful to a sports historian one day as an encyclopedic entry. there were a couple of others, but they seemed to be along similar lines Kathodonnell (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be more than enough from reliable sources to not only justify this article's existence, but to have a decent article. Trove will improve with time and with that will come improved text searching as the OCRs are corrected. Orderinchaos 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trove test is sufficient Satu Suro 00:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matariki Research Observatory[edit]

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

About an observatory that does not exist. Source-free, contains a lot of potentially libellous allegations/statements. Iridia (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or purge of outsourced negative comments about living people Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot validate the notability at all, does not fit in the Wikipedia style of writing as well Tashif (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were an article about everything that doesn't exist there would soon be little space left. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Nothing notable about a building that hasn't been built, although there may be some notability of the project that was supposed to build it... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rus Wooton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added 22 Citations, including 1 industry award and 4 industry award nomination, as well as 5 additional External Links in order to both verify encyclopedic information and to establish notability. I have also deleted the section titled Cartoonist as there are currently no verifiable sources to be found and linked to. I am both the article's creator and subject. Myheart4apen 04:33, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
- Many of the citations I added have been automatically deleted. I've attempted to edit the article to fit Wikipedia guidelines and still establish notability. Thanks! Myheart4apen 05:49, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Delete - A Wikipedia software bots deletes sources that are blacklisted or known to be not sufficiently reliable. No reliable sources found per WP:RS that assert notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE for creative professionals. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I do understand why the Wikipedia bot removed some sources, and I do not dispute their removal. Additional sources have been added that assert notability as a letterer in the comic book industry. --Myheart4apen 16:07, 31 May 2011 (MDT)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't mind if the article's deleted. I mainly created it because a number of other articles linked to "Rus Wooton" but there was no article. Myheart4apen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 6 June 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, T. Canens (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Malacological Society[edit]

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

Non-notable group, still trying to figure out why CSD was denied for this. Ridernyc (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not one of the world's largest or best-known scientific organizations, but it seems to be a legitimate scientific society. I added some sourced content to the article. The society has been the subject of third-party coverage, confirming notability, although it's hard to find the coverage and evaluate it, since most of the available sources seem to be in the Estonian language. --Orlady (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 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, Sandstein 05:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Orlady's sourcing. I'm sure that further sources exist in the Estonian language. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep thanks to User:Orlady for sourcing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If properly sourced, there is no reason that even a small scientific group could be notable and have its own article. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelleflex Corporation[edit]

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

More non-notable tech company spam. —Chowbok ☠ 20:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They make a variety of tracking chips, but have a hard time getting the words out: products are able to deliver extended range, reliability, memory, and security. As a worldwide company, Intelleflex offers complete solutions to customers in the perishable food and pharmaceutical cold chain, equipment and personnel management, and Logistics, as well as other Asset Tracking markets. Unambiguous advertising for a business with no encyclopedia level significance in history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snake pit (game)[edit]

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

Unsourced, nothing about it on Internet Keepscases (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (shakes his head) Nearly four years it took for someone to AfD this blatant WP:NFT violation. Ravenswing 05:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No "keep" opinion has been expressed and the article still contains no references to reliable published sources, which per WP:V seals its fate. Sandstein 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terence McShane[edit]

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

Delete. Article lacking credible claims of importance or significance. (A7 removed.) Notability is not established in accordance with either the general or topical notability guidelines. Unable to locate sources to support the article's content. Cind.amuse 02:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person seems real, and the article sincere, enough. However I also couldn't find any more info on the person. The name is common, including a character in an O'Henry story and a firefighter who died in the Twin Towers. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I asked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland if anybody had any input on how one would judge the notability of a seanchaí. Cloveapple (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would think it's a bit moot. We're not here to discuss notability of Seanchai, but rather the notability of Terence McShane. The Seanchai article is supported by significant coverage, while the article about Terence McShane, lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. This is the issue that needs to be resolved here, since we don't exactly have topical notability guidelines for seanchais, and neither the criteria for authors or musicians is met. Cind.amuse 05:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think Cloveapple's request is relevant. While we may not be discussing here the notability of Seanchai, rather the notability of Terence McShane, one must considered if an exemplar or instance of a Seancahí, by virtue of the set of circumstance that pertained in a cultural milieu in his period may gain notability merely by that fact in that cultural milieu. This requires understanding of that milieu. Hence Cloveapple's request is important. Given, a historical context, where an indigenous population is colonised and ,through statute, their culture is marginalised and the media reflects the interests and perspective of the colonising culture, it is inevitable that documentation would be limited. Furthermore, given the very nature of a Seanchaí's trade, as an aural tradition, this would be doubly so. Therefore, the assessment of the adequacy of the supporting material should be assessed by those who understand that milieu. An identifiable member of a historically significant but numerically diminishing cultural phenomenon, for whom there are examples of their work extant may have great cultural significance. The fact that some have seen fit to record and preserve this work lends some weight to the significance of this exemplar. A second reason for seeking the views of those in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland is that, given that some in the linguist/cultural dominant group (ie British English) still deny status to the cultural group from whence this exemplar comes, it would be important not only to be thorough and independent of negative cultural bias, but to be seen to be so. For example, in Northern Ireland, an Irish Language bill, the necessity of which reflect the cultural marginalisation of the Irish speaker, has yet to be enacted due to resistance from the dominant English speaking culture.^[1] TheMcShane —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - Comment. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert an individual's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. Anything less than providing evidence of notability, that is, support through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, is really not helpful to a discussion, which would lead to keeping the article. Cind.amuse 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - for now given the years during which this individual was active, and his cultural heritage, there is a strong likelihood that any reliable sources are 1. in Gaelic and 2. not available online. I think it's quite likely that such sources do exist, but I'm not sure if anyone will be able to find them easily. Thparkth (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment. If he is notable, there should be references. Without references I would go for delete. Hohenloh⁺ 09:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to bring to peoples attention that the recordings made were not as commercial recordings but archive material gathered by Peter Douglas Kennedy , one of the most significant archivists of traditional culture around at the time. The documentation of the material is already conserved in the British National Library, and after cataloguing, so to will the recordings themselves. I would argue that his selection of this recording for archival purposes represent independent verification of notability. The problem in this area is that very substantial individuals did not have any press coverage at the time. For example Elizabeth Cronin, to the best of my knowledge, had to wait to the present decade before any hard documentation from "reputable sources" was available - "Irish Traditional Singer: The Complete Song Collection. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, editor. Four Courts Press, Dublin. 2000. ISBN 1- 85182-259-3." This despite her having a massive influence on traditional song. Prior to this she too would have been documented in recordings by collectors such as are found in Peter Kennedy's collection, and no doubt would have caused the same difficulty vis-a-vis notability. Peter Douglas Kennedy was associated with the great American folklorist and ethnomusicologist Alan Lomax. It will be noted in wiki's entry for Peter Douglas Kennedy, that he was criticised for personal attributes, but "his scholarship was rarely questioned." As an aside, With Desmond Hawkins and Ludwig Koch, Kennedy was one of those responsible for setting up the BBC NATURAL HISTORY UNIT at Bristol. With Alan Lomax he was researcher and joint presenter of the SONGHUNTER Series from Alexandra Palace - the very first TV production of folk music in Britain directed by Sir David Attenborough. So to have someone with that track record considering one worthy of notice, and for the BBC to broadcast one, I would argue is significant supporting evidence for notability. cf. Peter Kennedy --TheMcShane (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A brief biographical note by Peter Douglas Kennedy confirms the overall description of the areas in which he was active [from Antrim to Donegal - in a time before easy transport a fairly large geographical spread], his teaching of Irish, his involvement with Irish Dance, and that he was to be found at various types of events.--TheMcShane (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Catharsis[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. could not find evidence of charting or indepth third party coverage. google mainly shows customer reviews. All music doesn't even bother to review or rate this album. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and improve with sources. google has 88000 hits on ("Spiritual Catharsis" striborg) some of which are usable. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Please specify which sources are actually usable and qualify as reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, this, from the first 100. Obviously this is not a mainstream artist so will not be reviewed in The Times. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and categorize the redirect but deletion is not a reasonable option. The sources are of course fairly weak but as Occuli points out, this is to be expected. Pichpich (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Occuli found. Lugnuts (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African American Street Gangs[edit]

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

Wikipedia currently has a general article on this subject, Gangs in the United States. Not sure if a separate article is needed for African American gangs. In addition, this is unsourced and looks very much like original research. If there is anything worth keeping in this article, it should be merged to the main article. I really don't see anything here worth keeping, so Delete. Safiel (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep but move and consolidate in Street gangs. The articles is primarily about the "crips" a note worth topic and should be renamed accordingly. The present article heading might reflect bias. If kept the article will require further work regarding second source references.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with street gangs article. The article doesn't offer much to sustain itself as an individual article, it would read better part of the African American section of street gangs. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are absolutely no reliable sources on the 'article' and it seems to throw a bunch of rumors and innuendos throughout the page with no way to verify anything. This page should have been deleted a long time ago. Dave Dial (talk) 04:20, 10 June 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) 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not up to WP standards. This is such a sensitive topic that any information has to be from really reliable sources (that is more than just normal WP "reliable sources") and presented in a serious, mature way. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the importance of race in gang politics I could see a reason for these articles, but they would have to be meticulously sourced and handled delicately. There are important reasons that african-american gangs are different from (and often violently opposed to), for instance, hispanic gangs. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a danger that if the articles seem to be written from inside the gang culture that could seem to be glamorizing the life style, or presenting negative stereotypes of all minority group members, or both at the same time. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is the central pillar in contemporary US gang structure. Yes, presently seems to have been authored by mainly urban (diverse?) people. Needs to be upgraded with references & verified information. Numerti (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it has been restructured and referenced. The page now makes better sense, with a restructuring and references added. Numerti (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the grounds that this represents a content fork and original essay. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quintain(5lines)[edit]

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

Article is simply a dictionary definition in contravention of WP:NOT#DICDEF, and without scope for expansion gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is unsource, improperly titled, and the content wrong.Curb Chain (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've fixed the content to reflect the facts (Quintain is not a poetic form, but appears to be a catch-all term for any poetic form having five lines). It can probably be sourced, and the title fixed to Quintain (poetry), but the central problem remains: There's really nothing to be added beyond the dictionary definition. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Quintain (poetry). Assuming outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintain (poetry) will be Keep. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is no content that is not already at Quintain (poetry) so there is nothing to be accomplished by merging, and the title is a very implausible search term. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 13 June 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) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible search term. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a duplicate of Quintain (poetry) and an unlikely redirect. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlikely search term. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahraini Hezbollah[edit]

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it displays no source and no evidence (from the internet) even suggests that this group "Bahraini Hezbollah" even exists. I have not found any legitimate source on the internet pertaining to this group (aside from those linking back to this article). It is likely a fictional group and for such reasons, I nominate it for deletion. Droodkin (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Difficult one to call. There are lots of news articles about militant government opposition which has been labelled as Hezbollah. There are also many claims that it is sponsored from Iran. It could be propaganda but there might be some truth in it. Which leads me to think that any article is likely to be WP:OR. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary content fork about an organisation which may well not exist. If it does exist, it should be covered in a relevant article about Islamism in Bahrain or the Politics of Bahrain - I can't see any evidence that it's notable (no significant coverage). --Anthem 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [13]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be deleted ? Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 13 June 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) 00:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and after seven years is no more than a one sentence article. --Ted87 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Alan Worth[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. Reason stated on talk page is:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Church organist and salesman whose "discography" consists of private label, non-notable recordings. Being a student of a notable person does not make the student himself notable. Originator has previous AfDs. 68.175.98.76 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject had made national tours under a major management house (Columbia Artists Management), has at least four recordings with three re-issued or still in print, and designed and/or oversaw installation or major instruments in the United States. These criteria would appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Nominator for AfD is anonymous? Mariepr (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet looked into the notability of this subject, but I must point out that the AfD nominator is no more anonymous than you are - if anything, less so, as we know the nominator's IP address. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on note by 68/175.98.76 "Originator has previous AfDs". What does a "previous AfD" have to do with the main discussion - mainly does Ted Alan Worth meet notability standards or not. Mariepr (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualDubMod[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualDubMod, although aging, is still an important and well known video editing tool. It's used by many and definitely needs an article on Wikipedia. The article may need more references, but they can be easily found on the net, and some are already there. I'm opposed to deletion. Jaho (talk) 01:20, 15 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When googling for virtualdubmod vs virtualdub, the article on VirtualDubMod was the first hit, proving its relevance—at least for me. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Wikipedia being the 1st google hit generally proves the lack of notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Wikipedia seems to be the first google hit for just about everything notable. Unless YMV, for instance, try this and this :-) - DVdm (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc[edit]

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

Article about one of several IRC modes in emacs. Oddly enough, it does not appeared to be covered in emacs books probably because it was adopted as "standard" (which means included) in emacs 22 (2007). The totality of independent coverage here is about 400 words in a single linux.com article covering this and three other emacs IRC clients. This level of coverage does not justify a separate article in my view. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that this "standard" is questionable because the linux.com article cited does not even say this; see WP:V. It only says that this mode and ERC are both bundled with emacs 22. The difference is that you invoke rcirc with M-x irc and the other one with M-x erc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing list announcement did not say this is standard either, so I've changed the article in that respect. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source which is also present in the stub article is also a reliable source. It is in Russian, but given your outrage in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxmail and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disgraceful, thinly-veiled racist comments over people discounting Chinese sources, you should give the same respect to other non-English sources. Linux.com was previously established to be a reliable source at RS/N and by further research done by User:Pcap. Further, this AfD nomination appears to be retaliation for me bringing up FuFoFuEd's unusual editing behaviour at ANI. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between these articles is both qualitative and quantitative. Foxmail has dozens of articles in Chinese sites like sina.com and 163.com, as well as a bunch of Chinese books, and is known to have have captured a significant portion of the Chinese email market in the beginning of the last decade. This emacs mode has a 1/4 of an article in English (in a source whose reliability and notoriety I did not contest, so I don't know why you even bring that up) and a Russian article in alexott.net, a site that is of questionable notoriety. It may well be one person's self-published blog; Alex Ott? Based on his CV he translated in Russian the emacs manual and writes a blog, which is probably a continuation of that area of interest. Also, I'm not targeting your contributions as you claim on a whim. I've also nominated for discussion an email mode emacs: wanderlust (software). I don't think these emacs modes are independently notable mainly because they are not discussed by sources focused on the application domain (irc or email), only by sources discussing emacs. They also have little independent coverage even in that niche context, in part because there's plethora of them (at least 3 modes for email and 4 for irc.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, where did you bring my behavior to ANI? I recall Msniki did that complaining that I wrote an essay, which was then deleted. Is this a different discussion? If so, I can't find it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:19, 4 June 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, 8 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Entertainment Weekly. v/r - T P 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewwy Award[edit]

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this entertainment "award" given out by an entertainment magazine. Sources trace back to the magazine itself. PROD removed by IP "editor" without comment, which in my opinion should be treated as if it didn't happen. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Entertainment Weekly. The only coverage of the Ewwy awards is from Entertainment Weekly itself. It would be appropriate to trim heavily and merge the main details. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A basic Google search came up with these third party sources: [14] [15] [16] Ruby2010 comment! 04:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first item is a blog from AMC touting their own show, and encouraging viewers to vote for them; the second is a press release. Neither of those are reliable sources. I'm not sure what sort of editorial oversight is used on that site. At this point, I wouldn't put much weight into it for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable blog award rewarding shows not good enough for the Emmys, of which there are at least 50-100 of which on various TV blogs in mid-July every year. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Entertainment Weekly per Whpq. No need for a separate article, but there are four sources that should be kept. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge. It would belong better in the main subject's article. Not to mention Entertainment Weekly being a reliable source, I don't see why it can't go in the Entertainment Weekly article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jazz Quartet[edit]

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

The band fails the notability guidelines of WP:BAND, and I have been unable to find sources that discuss the band in depth, other than just mentioning their works. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The band meets at least the following criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." There are books and encyclopedias that have long articles about the band, a little can be seen on the references of the Portuguese and English pages. For example, the books of Jørgen Grunnet Jepsen and Fernando Lichti Barros discuss the band in depth. 189.30.252.185 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 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) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band was active mainly in the 1950s and searching for any substantial online coverage is difficult. However, the entry in the Enciclopédia da música brasileira (1977, p. 599, see G-books) is in my opinion sufficient for inclusion here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Under Fire[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable television program of short duration. Appears to fail GNG. LordVetinari (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Program was aired under paid programming time in a time where PAX/Ion was flailing horribly. No real notability because it had to pay to get on TV rather than being produced by the network. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding "strobel" to the Google news search yields this search, which shows plenty of RS coverage for the show. Most are behind paywalls, but we have Businessweek, Crosswalk, and ABC News talking about the show, for starters. While the show may indeed have been paid programming and exempt from an automatic presumption of notability, the GNG still appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 10 June 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) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general all TV series are considered notable. I don't especially like that since they all get coverage in the news media, just like the weather and sports do. Keep seems like the best thing for this article, deleting it would not especially improve WP when every other show has an article and lots have many. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4: The City Is Mine[edit]

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

Mixtape from a rapper that doesn't have an article on here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Wayne has expressed interest in signing this artist to his Young Money Entertainment record label and if he does this mixtape would very quickly become this artists most touted work (simply as it is his latest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshman5000 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And your source for this is where? (And how do you know this would become the artist's most touted work?) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - it was in an interview with Amanda Diva he was asked if he "...had any plans to extend the roster of Young Money" he replied "we already are with Cory Gunz and I'm thinking about this AZ guy (Yung)MillzZ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshman5000 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When the performing artist himself isn't considered notable enough for a WP article, his individual recordings certainly can't be. And even if Young MillzZ had been deemed notable, this mixtape hasn't had time to become notable itself, since it's set to be released today.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:45, 11 June 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) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freshman5000's rationale is speculative per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.--v/r - T P 22:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Center and Mosque of Grand Rapids[edit]

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

A promotional and essentially unsourced article about a seemingly non-notable subject. The entire article talks about how nice a place this mosque is, and its only source is the mosque's website; no evidence of notability is provided, and the entire content of the article is an advertisement. This was prodded and deleted, but undeleted after it was observed that the person who prodded it was evading a block. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it certainly is a mess, but in a few clicks, I found lots of potentially good sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Possibly userfy, or incubate, or rescue? Bearian (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most (all?) of the above links are bare/tangential mention. No indication of any depth of coverage at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Bearian. Contacting the religious institution to get a comment about something from the guy running it, adds to its notability, they doing that in the first two links provided. Nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph L. Marino Sr.[edit]

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

Bio of a US attorney. Author, who is probably Joseph L. Marino Jr., just does not seem to be able to get the idea of reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marino apparently had a fine career, but no evidence of notability for WP purposes.--Kubigula (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super key (keyboard button)[edit]

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

Content is already covered in Space-cadet_keyboard, and is not notable Mamyles (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect This is better covered under the Space-cadet article, although it's reasonable to keep the name around as a redirect. The revival of the term once the Windows key became common on new keyboards is interesting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. The key is used to refer both to the Space-cadet Keyboard, and modern usage as a generic modifier on Linux and BSD systems. Things shouldn't be deleted just because they are short and few people care about them. The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some, anyone know where I can find better information about KDE and Openbox usage? The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pause, let the Sanest Mad Hatter do his or her thing, and then think afresh. I'd never heard of the "Space-cadet keyboard" and now that I come to look at it am still in the dark; as although it's written in the past tense there's no indication of time. (The brown color seems unfashionable so I tentatively infer that it's old.) I have, however, been asked to use the "Super key" (I think in either Debian or something for Debian) and this article was useful for that. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I always wondered by the Windows key is called "super" on Linux. Now I know. Shouldn't be deleted although I might perhaps be merged somewhere else. I'm not sure if the Space-cadet article would be the best place for that, though. —Ruud 19:51, 12 June 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, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A merge would not do because the article talks about the original use of the term on the Space-Cadet keyboard, and its contemporary application on quite different keyboards and OS. It appears that the topic is established, notable and a likely search term. --AJHingston (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Super Keys are used outside of the space-cadet keyboard (I use one myself). This is now covered in the article. Francis Bond (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Fundamental part of Linux computing used by tens of thousands of people. This is not exclusive to space-cadet keyboard and thus a redirect is inappropriate. Steven Walling 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think my rewrite makes it acceptable, also makes the original reason of it being covered under the Space-cadet keyboard false as it now contains super key specific information. The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Bahadur Muhammad Ismail[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS sources supporting notability of this person, under wp standards. The article has been tagged for notability since 2010. It has only one source, which does not appear to me to be an RS. Others are welcome to try to find better indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions of the article indicate that he subsequently became a district magistrate, which may be notability (districts are the next level down from 'state' in India). Also note that "Sardar Bahadur" is a title, not part of his name, which may hinder searching. DS (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was there RS sourcing for that claim?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 June 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, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Order of British India#First Class where the small amount of content can be added to his entry. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MIMO. v/r - T P 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mimo[edit]

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

I am creating this AfD on behalf of the IP who completed steps 1 and 3; rationale is copied from the talk page. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world does this page exist? I will be $1000 internet dollar that this whole thing was written by Marianne Murphy herself. An "...aura of cuteness as well as a subtle touch of eeriness, further adding to its unique and mysterious personality"?????? Clearly MIMO should be the primary link. This page should almost certainly be deleted. 192.91.172.36 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to MIMO. Title has existed as a redirect or dab page since 2005. This article on the sock toys is blatant advertising, but there's too much history on the dab/redirect page that I don't think should be deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for completing this step for me. I thought I had followed the correct order. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 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, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to MIMO, where the page cab still be useful. Current version is blatant spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 12:56, 21 June 2011 JohnCD (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Memoira (album)" ‎ (A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memoira (album)[edit]

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

Self-published album by a non-notable band. damiens.rf 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 June 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, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A9 Applied band article doesn't exist and band isn't notable. Speedy it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Vector[edit]

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

Spam article about non-notable tech company. —Chowbok ☠ 20:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 June 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, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: ....deploys sensor automation platforms, putting RFID, barcode, temperature, GPS and motion sensors to work for businesses in the pharmaceutical, retail, distribution, and manufacturing industries. No showing of encyclopedia level significance in history, technology, culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sky Network[edit]

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

Spam article about non-notable company. —Chowbok ☠ 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. provides global satellite tracking, communication, and management solutions for aviation, land mobile, and marine assets... They mean "track the position of ships and planes" but write "management solutions". Pande manum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogma[edit]

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

Article was deprodded, but same reason still stands. Since the article originally claimed the word was just established less than a month ago, and has now been changed to about 13 months ago, this seems to clearly fall into WP:NEO as an effort to establish usage, and as such should be deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this neologism is in common use, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Moroccoan blogosphere is clearly a coherent topic worth discussing and 'blogma' is a widely used term: defined as such in the book International blogging: identity, politics, and networked publics By Adrienne Russell, Nabil Echchaibi pg. 143 and defined in an AFP article. jorgenev 04:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Blogoma and its AfD 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

transwiki/move transwiki the word to wiktionary, based on jorgenev's sources; move references to Internet censorship in Morocco. Further secondary sources would be needed for a full article. If further WP:RS can be found, Moroccan blogosphere would be a better name for the topic (with Blogma as a redirect). That name would make it clear that the article isn't about the word itself, and make the topic more evident from the title for novices. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Will the Irish Language Act happen in Northern IrelandIrish Independent Newspaper

[1] Will the Irish Language Act happen in Northern IrelandIrish Independent Newspaper

[1]