Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 21

< 20 June	22 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Third Daughtry Album[edit]

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

Future album that according to the infobox has not even started recording, has no release date and has no tracklisting fails WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. There are two non-reliable sources used, a radio station commenting on Daughtry's tweets and a blog linking to a youtube video of a Daughtry performance. Aspects (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:CRYSTAL violation.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing with which to build an actual article at this point in time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 27 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) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malstatt-Burbach[edit]

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

Malstatt-Burbach ceased to exist in 1909, when the city of Saarbrücken was formed. Yuunli (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Troy ceased to exist even earlier. If there is nothing interesting to be said about Malstatt-Burbach other than that it was one of the three towns that were merged to form today's Saarbrücken, then it should just be merged there. If there is enough interesting stuff (unlikely, as on the German Wikipedia it's already a redirect to Saarbrücken), then we can keep it. Either way this has nothing to do with deletions or notability. You don't need AfD for a redirect, unless you must enforce it against opposition. Hans Adler 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. As a inhabited place it is inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Dewritech (talk) 10:26, 27 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) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Micheal McCarthy[edit]

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

A university student who interviewed Noam Chomsky. He also founded, Anarchadia, a webzine that has only produced one edition and he is the only contributor to the webzine. Couldn't find anything via search, but his name is common.

Note: This article has been speedily deleted and salted in the past. However, the current article is totally different to the past articles, but are both by the same editor. Past dealings should not be a factor whether to delete or not delete the current article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopedia-worthy. Having conducted an interview and started a webzine are worthy pursuits, but not remotely close to satisfying Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent sources have been provided to establish the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and resalt. Nothing to see here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/03/475070.html, they are everywhere on the net! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.123.205 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's certainly interesting, and I am am sure that he will continue to do great things, but what he did was one newscycle's worth of interest. He comes nowhere close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vijendra K. Singh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF guidelines. No coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. Tagged for quite some time without improvement. The only reliably sourced coverage I could find was a brief (and negative) mention in Autism's False Prophets, which doesn't seem like enough to satisfy notability guidelines or build a neutral encyclopedia article. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact published here, that Dr. Vijendra K. Singh, Ph.D left the company, Brain State Technologies, is virtually the only reference on the internet that he does not endorse the company. Brain State technologies employees a corporate reputation monitor that inundates the internet with glowing reports about the company despite a number of consumer complaints and lawsuits. For this reason, his bio is relevant to consumers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjn7 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines. Consumer complaints have nothing to do with our notability policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject appears to have a GS h index of 25 (albeit in a well-cited area) which would appear to pass WP:Prof#C1. Would the nominator care to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think that h-index is a criterion for notability, nor should it be. Notability criteria aren't arbitrary hoops to jump through; they're intended to ensure we can write decent encyclopedic coverage of a subject. An article reading: "Singh is a researcher with an h-index of 25" isn't particularly useful. Again, I don't see independent, reliable sources documenting a major impact by Singh on his field.
  Moreover, Singh is closely identified (in the lone independent, reliable source) with the claim that vaccines cause autism, a claim which enjoys zero scientific credibility. Thus, one could argue that far from having a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline", he has demonstrably failed to impact his field. MastCell ^Talk 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your views are welcome, but academic Afds are determined on the basis of Wikipedia policy as interpreted by consensus of editors. If you look at these debates over the past few years you will find consensus that WP:Prof#C1 is be satisfied by impact of independent citations measured by citation count. In regard to numbers the precedent seems that to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. Those with an h index of less than 10 rarely pass. There is no formal policy on this; it is just the way that decisions of editors have evolved over the past few years. Standards of notability for academics and scholars in the English Wikipedia are much higher than for some other subjects; garage bands, musicians or athletes sometime get by with only a handful of references. The acceptable number of citations also varies by subject. It is also not the job of editors of these pages to determine whether a subject's views are correct or incorrect, good or evil. We only determine if they are notable from having been noted, and in this case it is clear that the subject has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The purpose of WP:PROF, as with all special notability guidelines, is to indicate that the subject is likely to be notable. However, as the guideline itself states, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." Are there reliable, independent sources on the subject? I don't know; I haven't looked. Have you, by any chance? NW (Talk) 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anybody have data on what WoS says about his citations, actual positions held, etc.? "Working at" a university in research is a nonspecific statement that spans everything from lab dishwasher to endowed chair professorship. I've been travelling, and my internet access is both slow and limited. Ray^Talk 10:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked in WoS, but there are too many persons named VK Singh to do a good citation analysis with any confidence. --Crusio (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the following search parameters:

Extended content

Author=("Singh VK")

Refined by: General Categories=( SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=( PARASITOLOGY OR ALLERGY OR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS OR MECHANICS OR METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR TRANSPLANTATION OR DERMATOLOGY OR RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING OR ETHNIC STUDIES OR WATER RESOURCES OR FORESTRY OR GEOLOGY OR ELECTROCHEMISTRY OR COMPUTER SCIENCE OR METALLURGY & METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING OR MICROSCOPY OR THERMODYNAMICS OR RESPIRATORY SYSTEM OR AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS OR SPECTROSCOPY OR FAMILY STUDIES OR UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY OR GEOGRAPHY OR ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY OR MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY OR BUSINESS & ECONOMICS OR SPORT SCIENCES OR INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION OR CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY OR ORTHOPEDICS OR CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES OR EMERGENCY MEDICINE OR SOCIAL ISSUES OR TROPICAL MEDICINE OR OPTICS OR ACOUSTICS OR PSYCHOLOGY OR ANESTHESIOLOGY OR ENTOMOLOGY OR COMMUNICATION OR MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY OR CRYSTALLOGRAPHY OR MINING & MINERAL PROCESSING OR ENERGY & FUELS ) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=( CHEMISTRY OR POLYMER SCIENCE OR BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OR NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY OR AGRICULTURE OR IMMUNOLOGY OR RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE OR VETERINARY SCIENCES OR PLANT SCIENCES OR ZOOLOGY OR CELL BIOLOGY OR DEMOGRAPHY OR GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY OR HEMATOLOGY OR GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY OR REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OR GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS OR MICROBIOLOGY OR MATHEMATICS OR PHYSIOLOGY OR EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH OR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ECOLOGY OR IMAGING SCIENCE & PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY OR INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE OR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY - OTHER TOPICS OR MATERIALS SCIENCE OR SURGERY OR MEDICAL INFORMATICS OR OPHTHALMOLOGY OR CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM & CARDIOLOGY OR PALEONTOLOGY OR ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM OR MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY OR ROBOTICS OR NUTRITION & DIETETICS ) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=( ENGINEERING OR PHYSICS OR PATHOLOGY OR FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY OR GENERAL & INTERNAL MEDICINE OR LINGUISTICS OR ANTHROPOLOGY OR BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY )

Timespan=All Years.

I have narrowed the references down to twenty articles. This may or may not be accurate, but it's the best I could do in a quick runthrough. Feel free to fix it if you can. Of them, only four are cited above 3 times, only two are cited above 5 times, and only 1 is cited above 50 times (4, 4, 7, 51). The paper with 51 citations is PMID 2866504; Singh is last author on that. It was written in 1985, so I'm not exactly sure—does that mean he was the principal investigator or last on the totem pole?

But in any case, if the winnowing down has been done properly, that gives him an h-index of 4? A ways away from 25, even if we do accept the "h-index > 15 ==> notability" proposition. NW (Talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, not enough independent reliable sources to build a truly encyclopedic article. Yobol (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MastCell and NW. Arbitrary numbers, such as h-index, need to be compared with some relevant reference. The article reads very promotional because of lack of in-depth coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. Fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:59, 28 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) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County General Hospital (Chicago, Illinois)[edit]

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

Completely in-universe article with no hope of ever achieving real-world notability. Previous AfD contained many arguments about how ER is a notable show, which it is, but notability is not transferable. This fictional location is not notable in its own right and there is not enough real-world information in third-party reliable sources to justify this article's existence. Kbir1 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is mostly unsourced and has, at best, one link to a source other than an episode of the series. Furthermore, a large proportion of the article is devoted to a list of characters from the show, which is already covered better in Cast of ER anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Keep rationales from the last AfD were very weak. This article largely overlaps with Cast of ER, so if need be, I wouldn't mind seeing information incorporated there. The #Other Areas section is trivial in-universe cruft and doesn't need a new home. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional hospital meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and it seems that any article about it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. I don't see anything worth merging since it merely repeats information already present in other ER-related articles. The article barely provides 3 references, two of them from primary sources, to justify all the plot-related content that it has. Jfgslo (talk) 05:33, 27 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) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing The Game[edit]

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

Delete − Book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) — Fly by Night (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herlinatiens[edit]

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

the only reference is the indonesian wikipedia and of the external links the Inside Indonesia one is a dead link and the others (goodreads, amazon, and facebook) don't do anything to prove the idea that this is a bestselling author PTJoshua (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish notability Reichsfürst (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Egads, doing an AfD less than two hours after a new user post an article is not right. Best to ask questions to the editor or do a google search first. This article from the Jakarta Post shows she has two bestselling books in Indonesia. Quote from a book in her reference section (not easily found will make it more prominent.), "Her fiction is about the life of a lesbian Muslim. Written by a Muslim girl wearing jilbab, this fiction has triggered strong controversy even until today." Another quote from abs-cbn news, "...and Herlinatiens, gained popularity, writing new roles for women, particularly when it comes to sexuality." Sounds like, but don't know for sure, from the abs-cbn news article that it is now illegal to buy some of Herlinatiens' books. Will help improving the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article. With a magazine, book, two newspaper and two journal references, she at least is notable via WP:GNG. The two journal references are about her and the impact of her book. Bgwhite (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jakarta Post, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Asian and Pacific cosmopolitans (not cited), and other sources establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow. That's a pretty bad case of jumping the gun and completely bypassing WP:BEFORE. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for Afd, but in the process a copyvio was discovered and it was speedy deleted. It has now been recreated, but the original Afd nomination reasons still hold: This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was in the middle of expanding this article. There are several sources to establish its notability. Here are some examples: [1] (mentions Rabbi Micah Peltz of TBS at bottom of page), [2] (mentions TBS is affiliated with an agricultural org), [3] (this states an event at TBS with the NBC sportscaster Jimmy Roberts), [4] (TBS brochure), [5] (I admit, this article is mainly about the rabbi, but if read carefully it also gives some info on the synagogue), [6] (page on the Cherry Hill Shul, who are members of TBS, making donations to the National Guard), here's an article about the cantor raising money for the community: [7]. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for suggesting some links. I have now read these links as well, and am still having trouble finding anything that conveys notability on the synagogue. The first link has a passing quote about an entirely different topic than the synagogue by the rabbi of the synagogue. It wouldn't even be enough to confer notability on the rabbi, much less the synagogue. The second link is not a reliable source, but even if it was it talks about the establishment of the Hazon CSA of Southern New Jersey and makes passing reference to the synagogue being a partner of it. The third is an event announcement in a local paper, not substantial coverage which establishes notability. The fourth is a brochure produced by the synagogue - a self-source - which by definition can not establish notability and I'm surprised would be quoted as such in a deletion discussion. The fifth focuses on the rabbi, not the synagogue. The sixth is a passing reference in a local religious paper. And the seventh is yet another event announcement. The entire mention is, "Lunch and Learn on Monday, May 2 at Temple Beth Sholom, 1901 Kresson Rd., Cherry Hill. You bring the Lunch and we’ll bring the Learn, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m. Call 856-751-6663." in a local paper - this is not substantial reliable source secondary coverage to establish notability. The sum total of the seven additional sources, if these are some of the best sources available (which it does in fact appear to be), is that the synagogue is not notable. Putting sources such as these forth just strengthens the case of non-notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage relating to famous rabbi + famous congregants (Mitch Albom, Stephen Spielberg) + assorted other coverage as noted above = notable. (Note that some of the sources (mis)spell the congregation's name as "Beth Shalom".--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please take a look at the sources mentioned above a little more closely rather than just looking at the fact that there are seven of them. None of them provide any notability for the synagogue if you read them instead of counting them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To User:ConcernedVancouverite: The links I have provided are in fact notable to the synagogue. Some may focus specifically on the rabbi, clergy and events related to the synagogue, but isn't all of this apart of the congregation? This seems clearly notable to me. Also, your accusation and assumption of User:Gene93k just counting the number of sources and not reading them is clearly ridiculous. This sudden streak of deletion is getting insane. Synagogues are places of worship, each are unique in their own ways. Tinton5 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to look more carefully at the refs before !voting, but from what I've seen here and elsewhere I concur with Tinton's post.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently Steven Spielberg's family were congregants when he was a boy. (See http://books.google.com/books?id=DbqATVZHvkQC and search on "Beth Shalom.") Notability is not inherited (the temple is not notable because of a connection with a famous person), but that connection might have caused it to have received significant outside attention. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for that link, Orlady. I had turned up a few other sources that linked Spielberg with Rabbi Lewis of this congregation. But those sources all mentioned the connection with the Rabbi rather than the synagogue. The bulk of those, as I recall from my earlier search, were around the time of the obit for the Rabbi, which basically attributed having taught Spielberg as one of his accomplishments in his life. I agree with you fully that this does not confer notability on the synagogue unless there is significant reliable source coverage of the synagogue itself. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and violation of WP:AGF because User Tinton5 (talk · contribs) was in the midst of revamping and improving this article. 2nd nominations to delete should not come within a week of the 1st nomination. Based on the citations coming in it's notable as a synagogue. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, this is not a violation of process. The first AfD discussion ended because the article was speedy-deleted as a copyvio. This is a new (and different) article and the discussion is appropriately focused on the notability of the topic, per WP:N and WP:ORG. There is nothing preventing the article creator (or anyone else) from expanding and improving the article during the 7-day AfD discussion. --Orlady (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. There is ample RS coverage. Including the dozen or so refs I just added. Given that all 5 commentators [now all 10 commentators, with the 5 that follow this !vote] have found this to be a "Keep", I would not be against anyone closing this as a snow close, if the urge fell upon them, to save the community further time that could be used to address more borderline AFDs. Concerned has, as has been pointed out, now nominated a number of synagogues for deletion that (from what I can see) will all be kept; he may wish to consider whether there is a gap between his view of what constitutes "notability" for wp purposes, and what the consensus view is--again, to save the community time in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as indicated by both its large size, and the reliable sourcing in the article and on this AfD page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wouldn't call this "clearly notable," but the size, association with a rabbi who was a leader in the Jewish community, and famous former congregants make me think that it's probably notable. The recent discovery of a few third-party sources (not all of which are WP:RS and none of which are individually sufficient to establish notability) supports my conclusion of "probably notable." --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources as given seem to demonstrate notability, although it does seem possibly borderline. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see the relevance of that here, IZAK as the editor being discussed in that incident has not participated in this AfD at all. Are you Wikipedia:Canvassing here for other to join that discussion? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tinton5 (talk · contribs) ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources pass GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:03, 28 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 delted. For various reasons it is clear that the article creator, Sykernouborg-pt (talk · contribs), is a sock puppet of Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs), who has a long history of creating hoax articles. This article is hence subject to WP:CSD#G5. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Champ Car[edit]

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

this is an article about something which might happen but hasn't with a single reference that is only the sentence "The Champ Car return in 2012". PTJoshua (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Hoax article created by a sockpuppeted user who was previously blocked for creating hoax articles (User:Sykernouborg-az). 2012 New Champ Car season should also be speedy deleted. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - User and their sockpuppets have created other hoaxes so there are reasonable grounds to assume that they do not have serious intentions to create serious articles. However, the articles may just be something they heard on the grapevine. Nevertheless WP:CRYSTAL applies as well as possible creation by sockpuppet block evasion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Assuming good faith, the article is mostly conjecture, per WP:CRYSTAL. Any relevant and factual information should be added to Champ Car. Having said that, assuming the facts presented by the other editors are true, this just adds support to a speedy delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Roodog2k (talk) 14:13, 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 delete. –MuZemike 00:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Sild[edit]

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

Notability is not asserted with multiple third-party sources. Clearly a self-promotion by primary article author User:Laurisild. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no third party sources, self-promotion. --Sander Säde 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I didn't find anything reliable on him except for a few foreign language articles briefly mentioning him. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Mr Sild has just left the junior ranks and, judging by recent results, he will soon have world championship medals. In which case if you delete the article it will be only have to be replaced. Having said that, the article in its current form needs cleaning up. Dadge (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability-establishing citations, none readily evident in searches. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:06, 28 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) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being francophone[edit]

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

the tvmcgill reference doesn't say anything about Being Francophone and the other reference is a facebook page. PTJoshua (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page respects Wikipedia's guidelines for film notability and is part of a university program currently being distributed and soon to have its page on IMDB. Trailer watchable as well. Also competing in film festivals in the following months. Integrating the Canadian student documentary films library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonyon21 (talk • contribs) — spa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete per the arguments above, yes I know that's a keep !vote but every fact presented is a classic "not yet" case. If and when it competes in film festivals then, if it wins any awards, it will be notable, but it's not notable yet. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's not because you get an award that you deserve to be somewhere. If you don't give it a shot, sure it's never going to get anything at all. Plus it has already been covered in an edition of the Délit, a quebec newspaper. So sure I suppose this topic of biligualism and language politics is not of any interest for you guys in Europe, but it is a really pressing issue here in Canada. Hence it would be a good contribution to the elaboration of more articles about the 'French fact' and Anglo-franco tensions in Quebec, Canada and Francophonie. (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2011 (ET)

Actually, yes, winning in award is one criteria for "deserving" to be on Wikipedia. Every article is required to prove that they are somehow Notable, that means showing that important people (culturally important, socially important, ect) are talking about it, it's won awards, it has achieved a wide audience, ect. Wikipedia isn't the place to "give things a shot" it's a compilation of things already deemed noteworthy. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a confusion here. What you don't understand is that something doesn't need to win an award to be valuable or notable. You're the illustration of today's society, blinded by how things shine and knowing only what you're told to know, watching what you're told to watch, etc. It's not because this project is not part of a big production is somehow independent, that it needs to be completely ignored and erased like you're trying to do. It is only that way that we will encourage independent production to go on and to be shared with a wider audience, instead of favouring defective blockbusters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.235.230 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, something doesn't need to win an award to be notable, but winning in award is ONE way that something can be notable. Other ways include widespread critical acclaim (or panning, see The Room (film)), discussion in third-party sources, selection for national archives, widespread distribution, presence in film school course syllabuses or textbooks and being reviewed by high-profile reviewers. The question here is if this film meets any of the criteria laid out in WP:GNG and its addendum Wikipedia:Notability (films) HominidMachinae (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided yet. Student films are not inherently notable, nor would being covered in Le Délit français (a student newspaper at the same university where the film was produced) establish general notability for the film. This film does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (films) yet, although it may do so in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ just to come back to the first comment, tvmcgill.com does say something about it if you look at the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonyon21 (talk • contribs)
Delete without prejudice. The film is not currently notable as described WP:NF, but it may be at some point. It may be appropriate to userfy with the possibility of becoming of note. BOVINEBOY2008 14:13, 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 delete. –MuZemike 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Powder Toy[edit]

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

Not notable downloadable game with no references but to their own website. A google search did not reveal substantial coverage. N^oformation ^Talk 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no results at all from our videogames custom Google search. Marasmusine (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched Google for "The Powder Toy Review" and found a review for the game, stating that the game is a good educational tool and game for "...your casual gamer to hard core science geek..." If I need any more sources of information for the game, please let me know. Jtblack95 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot more sourcing. A review on the internet is not enough to give notability. Please read over WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to get an idea of what is required for inclusion. N^oformation ^Talk 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this review, so I can't really comment. Can you link to it? Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the game isn't mainstream or notably popular, I cease trying to find more links. It can be read about through other media, for example students passing it around in class. Jtblack95 (talk) 22:27, 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 keep. –MuZemike 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Watkins[edit]

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

Asserts notability, but I can't find a SINGLE non-trivial source. Literally everything I found just says something like "with Geraint Watkins on keyboard" despite the huge amounts of hits that say that. While he has multiple albums, only one was on a notable label. A huge repertoire ≠ notability if there are no sources, and the fact that his Allmusic entry is blank is a red flag. I also propose that The Balham Alligators be deleted since the last AFD suggested a merge there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am editing on a smart phone so can't cut and paste urls at the moment. George Martin's biographical sketch in Making Music is already referenced in the article. Billboard mentioned his "widely respected career" November 29, 2008. Eric Clapton and Derek Watts called him a "keyboard virtuoso" in Country Boy, their biography of Albert Lee. New York magazine called him "an understated legend in his own right" in 2004. Craig Morrison described him as a member of a "hot band of session players" in Go cat go!, his biography of Cat Stevens. In 1988, Living Blues magazine mentioned him as one of two musicians who "deserve special mention" following a festival performance. Peter Mills described "imperceptibly consistent notes from Geraint Watkins on the Hammond" in Hymns to Silence, his biography of Van Morrison. He's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me how getting lip service from higher ups = notability? Oh wait, IT FREAKING DOESN'T. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's one example of more substantial coverage, there are reviews of one of his albums here and here, and playing in the bands of all those highly notable artists for which he gets lots of brief mentions makes him notable.--Michig (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not inherited, but the Billboard and Allmusic reviews suggets possible notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with inheritance, we have a guideline for notability that indicates that a musician that has been a member of two or more notable bands is sufficiently notable for an article. Those reviews don't suggest possible notability, they mean that he is notable.--Michig (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; - Not sure the nominator is gonna be wowwed by the source, but if I were writing a bio of this person I would be on it. ROCKABILLY HALL OF FAME. I know the nominator doesn't like raw Google hits either, but with a haystack of over 71,000 hits for the unusual name "Geraint Watkins," you know there are a few more needles out there. That's a BIG haystack... Carrite (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review of Watkins sharing the bill with Nick Lowe in the MILWAUKEE EXPRESS: "When was the last time the opening act recieved an encore? Geraint Watkins opened with a solo set showcasing a style reminiscent of Fats Domino. From rollicking R&B to complex jazz chords, his originals were ripe with a sense of laid back experience. A longtime recording artist (he has worked with Van Morrison and Paul McCartney), Watkins’ nuanced playing and soulful vocals could have been pure Americana until his between song banter displayed a thick Welsh brogue. Watkins took to dramatically miming “Out Demons, Out!” and then recited the first lines of “Johnny B. Goode” before re-imagining the tune as a writ by Lieber and Stoller with a Thelonius Monk solo tossed in—an amazing take on a song that has become part of rock ’n’ roll’s collective consciousness. Needless to say, Watkins is a gem." Carrite (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of the friends of Carl Perkins and Friends on the 1985 Blue Suede Shoes: A Rockabilly Session. The drummer? Ringo Starr. Guitarists? George Harrison, Eric Clapton, Earl Slick, Dave Edmunds. We're not talking about Sylvia Starr or Heidi Harrison or Conrad Clapton or Sally Slick or Elmo Edmunds on a WP:NOTINHERITED beef here, this is a musician playing at that level. This is indicative that this guy is a pretty big fish in the entertainment industry even if he's not a household name... Carrite (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

BILLBOARD MAGAZINE confirms that Watkins is a member of Nick Lowe and the Impossibles. Carrite (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~BBC MUSIC has a little biography of him. They invite people to "Read more at Wikipedia" with a link, by the way.~~ Whoops, that's a Wikipedia mirror. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BILL WYMAN has a little bio up on the net. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watkins has been the subject of an interview in the MAY 1998 ISSUE OF KEYBOARD PLAYER MAGAZINE. This is a national circulation, glossy mag found in music stores around the world. (Paywalled). Carrite (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator will hate this, but it might come in useful if anyone wants to work more on the piece. PRESS KIT BIO OF WATKINS. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The bottom line is that if this were a rock and roll dude or a country music dude or a hip hop dude or a pop dude, he'd be miles over the notability bar at a cursory glance. But he's a very big fish in the small pond of rockabilly, so we've gotta bump and grind over this. Still, 71,000 Google hits on an obscure name is seldom wrong, as the above amply demonstrates. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that notability is not inherited. However, a book edited by legendary rock producer George Martin has to be considered a reliable source on rock music, and when an expert like Martin chooses to profile a musician, that goes a long way toward notability. As our Wikipedia article accurately states, Martin "is considered one of the greatest record producers of all time, with 30 number one hit singles in the UK and 23 number one hits in the USA." Here's a quote from Martin's Making music: the guide to writing, performing & recording, published in 1983: "Geraint Watkins was born in South Wales and played in bands there before moving to London where he joined various groups, including Juice on the Loose, on the pub circuit. In 1978 he recorded a solo album produced by Andy Fairweather Low. From 1979-1981 he toured and played with Shakin' Stevens; since then he has been working with Dave Edmunds." Note that this book was published 28 years ago, and the references found by Carrite and Michig also demonstrate his ongoing notability over the decades. Admittedly, he is not a household name, but he is a session musician with a long and illustrious career, and is more than worthy of a Wikipedia article in my opinion, which is informed by our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also plenty of coverage of The Balham Alligators around, including an entry for the band in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and The Virgin Encyclopedia of Country Music.--Michig (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given many of the above examples, subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I don't mean to repeat all the sources, but the coverage/reviews for his 2004 album - [8][9][10][11] - alone are sufficient to meet our guidelines. Another suggestion of notability just to throw out there: his 2008 album made the year-end "Best of" lists of two Billboard contributors/editors [12]. Gongshow ^Talk 23:59, 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 keep. –MuZemike 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale HaShalom[edit]

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

Ok, here's the situation. The first nomination, nearly a full year ago was closed as no consensus. There were more users who argued to keep than to delete, based on the idea that there were sources out there somewhere but for whatever reason they couldn't find them, even after two relists at AFD. Then, basically nothing happened for nine months. No actual reliable sources that addressed notability were found. I renominated the article. The same arguments were used again. The closing admin closed it as keep but when challenged he more or less admitted the arguments to keep were in fact weak and not supported by sources. He suggested I allow some more time, a total of four weeks at AFD with a nine month period in between apparently not being enough for users to find sources. See this exchange [13] on his talk page. The standard of verification has been met by the sources, but notability is not established. I know this is getting long but I'd like to go over them individually.

Google maps: Shows that the road exists and is in Jerusalem. No commentary whatsoever, just a map.
Entry in a travel guide to the streets of Jerusalem [14] One sentence in a 407 page long book. A rather cryptic comment about the name of the street and nothing else. Since this is a comprehensive guide to streets in Jerusalem, it is important to note that an apparent expert on the subject gave no indication they thought this was especially important compared to any other street in Jerusalem.
Entry on an anti-Israeli website Almost certainly not a reliable source, lists the street as one of many in Jerusalem renamed by the Israelis but offers no commentary whatsoever on why this street is particularly important.

That's all that anyone has been able to come up with after all this time. As advised by Cirt I gave a clear notification on the article talk page that I intended to renominate this if better sources were not found. He suggested I wait a week, I went one better and waited a month and no improvements have been made. The argument that sources must exist somewhere would seem to be an invalid one or those who keep arguing along those lines would have been able to find something better by now. I would add that I have done my own searching and have not found anything either, so let's keep the "wiki-philosophy" rhetoric out of this discussion please. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to my arguments that I stand by from earlier discussions, there are also several offline sources in Hebrew on this street that tell about the road, its history, and other information. It has been written about in Israeli newspapers and books. Sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable for notability when English-language sources cannot be found, and offline sources are surely good enough. Linda Olive (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are fine, as are those not in English. Nobody in all three debates on the subject has claimed that they are not so I'm not sure why you are even bringing up that point. Possibly because you have not actually presented these sources. We need to know what they are as opposed to just taking your word that they exist. Please provide the names and publication dates of these newspaper articles, ISBN numbers for the books, and any other information you may have about them so that they can be taken into account. Asserting they exist without offering any evidence doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like the first two AfD's, I use common sense and judge the road that half surrounds Mount Zion as notable. The name "Ma'ale HaShalom" is just a post 1949 Israeli affectation. The name likely has undergone many different language designations, variations and spellings, all in multiple characters. Obviously these pre-date the internet and historic sources about the road are very difficult to find online. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody has suggested that offline sources are no good, just that asserting that they exist without any evidence is not sufficient. Your comment implies that you have some knowledge of this subject above and beyond what is reflected in the article, if you could indicate where you gained that knowledge that would be great. I could argue that my cat was the first feline to climb to the summit of Mount Zion and is therefore automatically notable by association, but without any sources it is nothing but an unfounded assertion with no evidence to back it up. And of course I don't need to remind that you that notability is not inherited and passing by a notable location does not necessarily confer notability on a road. This is about proper sourcing, be it online or off, in English or not, we need something above and beyond what is currently presented to establish that this road is more notable than other roads, otherwise we could end up with poorly sourced, poorly written articles like this on every street on Earth. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now we've got a user adding some sources, but they seem to be about a road that connects to this road. According to the map, Ma'ale HaShalom goes past the base of Mt Zion, and the "Pope's Road" referred to in these new sources is the road that actually leads up the slope. So, what looks like a fine improvement to the article is actually information on an associated, but different, street. Ironically that road may be notable enough for it's own entry as there is actually some detail on when it was built and why. And they've removed one of the previous sources because it discusses a gate, not a road, by this name. Given the level of contradiction I believe this article, if not outright deleted, should be sent to the article incubator until such time as someone can conclusively determine what the actual subject of the article really is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for sources under the name "Pope's Road" leads to plenty of sources that provide significant reliable coverage on this road, clearly enough to meet the general notability guideline. The article should still be titled Ma'ale HaShalom, since that is its legal name today. But it is undoubtedly the same road. Sebwite (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come the map and written descriptions that use that name show it going past Mount Zion while the "Pope's Road" actually goes up the slope? This article has had problems from day one, and it seems like every time somebody tries (in good faith and all that) to improve it it actually gets more muddled and confused instead of less. If someone could produce a source that states clearly that the Pope's Road and Ma'ale HaShalom are the same thing that would be great, but asserting that it is without providing any evidence to support that claim is not so helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the road does go "up the slope, from the base of Mt. Zion in the west, upward and around Mt. Zion to the level of the Old City in the east. Even the photo demonstrates a marked incline "up the slope."--Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added four references to the article. This topic is properly a part of the gazetteer as supported by WP:5, which is "fundamental principles" and is listed co-equal with policies. I think that there is consensus here that even if no other policies or guidelines applied, WP:IAR ~~and/or WP:UCS are applicable, and these are full policies.~~ is applicable and is a full policy, in conjunction with the WP:IAR-based essay, WP:UCS. WP:GNG is not a key question for geographic notability—places on maps including city streets satisfy WP:GNG because cartographers (secondary independent sources) take note of such streets in great detail. The point remains that WP:N is not satisfied just because WP:GNG is satisfied—whether or not WP:GNG is satisfied, the topic must be "worthy of notice". Looking at the various essays about the notability of streets, User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people states, "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk, and those which are notable simply by way of their prominence within a city or town." In this case we have both historical and geographical inherent notability: this is a road in the Biblical city of Jerusalem, goes past the Dung Gate and is close to the Kosel, past Oskar Schindler's grave, and leads to within 60 yards of the Coenaculum which was the site of the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, was upgraded for the visit of a Pope to the Coenaculum, borders the Old City, and is a part of Mount Zion. Jerusalem has 800,000 people, so by the Grutness 50,000 rule, Jerusalem might have 16 notable streets. All of the geographical essays agree that at least some city streets are notable, and there can be no question that if any city streets are notable, this street is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 26 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 Splinter (Offspring album). –MuZemike 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da Hui[edit]

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

Automated message from Figity-Bot 2: Article does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:N; thus, this article is nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figity-BOT 2 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a vandal account/impersonator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: I requested re-opening this AfD because the nominator's intentions notwithstanding, I believed the nomination rationale had some merit and that it should go to community consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Splinter (The Offspring album). Song appears to have no notability per WP:NSONGS independent of the album. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lately there have been several instances of banned users making nominations, seemingly good nominations at that. Because this one hasn't attracted as many good-faith contributors as some of the other prior AfDs yet I say speedy close and let KuyaBriBri bring a fresh (not re-nomination) nomination. This allows us to follow revert, block, ignore policy and avoids tainting the AfD. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to album; no references to independent sources to confirm what is written about the song. Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see why this AFD needs to be re-opened. The nomination doesn't have merit. We often redirect non-notable songs to the album. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 27 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Evans[edit]

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

Source was found--copied from his official Army bio. That's not copyvio, because it is PD-US gov, but there is nothing in the career that makes for notability. A Bronze star is just the 4th level award. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Has not yet met WP:SOLDIER; fails WP:N, WP:GNG, ... Dru of Id (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable soldier. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Should of been A7 non notable.....96.244.254.20 (talk) 05:12, 28 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 per A7 based on Cbl62's findings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Garrett Long[edit]

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

BLP prod removed when a source was added, but what is claimed in not remotely notable. The source is a community newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of actual coverage in WP:RS, and playing at the collegiate level does not by itself satisfy WP:ATHLETE#Amateur sports persons. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to have a strong enough assertion of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a college football player can satisfy general notability requirements if he has received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, this article does not meet that standard. The only media coverage found for him is the one article cited, which is a human-interest story from a small-town newspaper, the focus of which is Long's lack of success as a football player. He struggled to play for NAIA Faulkner University, and according to the cited article, he tried to walk on at University of West Georgia, but was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the article's statment, "Adam Played was a Quarterback for the University of West Georgia," is not only grammatically incorrect, but also appears to be factually incorrect. This article should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the NCAA statistics page (http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch), which has player stats for anyone who played NCAA football. The database includes the Univ. of West Georgia and has no record of Adam Long ever playing a down of NCAA football. Also, note that the article was created by a single-purpose user who has never edited another Wikipedia article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is even worse than I thought. The cited article says that he intended to try out for the Faulkner team in 2010, but the 2010 Faulkner roster doesn't include him, not even as a JV player. I've removed the unsourced info that appears to be contradicted by reliable sources. Accordingly, we are now left with an article about a living college student who tried out for two college football teams without success. Can this be speedy deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 25 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheFlyOnTheWall.com[edit]

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

No real notability. A single lawsuit does not make it notable. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. with respect to the web site, completely nonnotable, not covered by third-party sources except with respect to the misappropriation case (which makes up the entirety of the article). With respect to the court case itself, Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., there's at least an argument that it may become notable, but for now it is not. It's just getting the same news coverage that any appellate case gets, and Wikipedia is not for news reports. If we had an article on hot news misappropriation, it would be worth a mention there, along with International News Service v. Associated Press (where "hot news" currently redirects) and National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., the leading cases in this area. But this case is not achieved any notability. It's possible, now that it has been reversed on appeal, that the appellate case may get some attention of the commentators, but it hasn't yet. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc. - Really not an issue for AFD, the case is notable, the website isn't outside the one case. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the case is notable? It's only a day old, and right now is merely newsworthy. It may attain notability (as that term is used in Wikipedia), but it isn't there yet. Right now, it's just another case of a claimed hot news misappropriation not surviving copyright preemption. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to debate whether or not it is notable would be in the proper article to begin with. It is at least arguable that the case *may* be notable (it is cited three times already, which indicates a possibility to pass wp:n) The website itself clearly is not. Move it, give it a few weeks to develop, if it doesn't then AFD it. It is a matter of procedure. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is for the article. There's nothing wrong with moving it if that's the right outcome, but the question under discussion is whether the subject of the article -- regardless of whether the subject is considered to be the organization or the case -- is notable. Moving it to a new name and then re-nominating it as a new subject is an exercise in timewasting.

You mention it's been cited three times, can you please elaborate on that?

I normally tend toward keeping, if there's a chance that the subject may become notable, and deletion would result in a loss of information that ought to be in the article once it becomes notable, but that's not the case here. What we have is one paragraph that describes a district court decision that has been reversed. The one-sentence second paragraph (which I added) makes clear that the district court's holding -- the entire basis of paragraph one -- was basically negated on appeal. It's essentially a null article. "This happened in a court; but then it was thrown out". Essentially, there's no value in keeping such null content just in case the case might become notable some time in the future.

As a side note, I prefer to think of the AFD process as a discussion, rather than a debate. "Debate" implies existing immalleable positions, where each participant seeks to win support for his or her position. Instead I see this as a discussion in an attempt to determine consensus. I usually don't change my position in an AFD, but sometimes I have, when either new facts come to light (the cites you say the case has may be an example of this) or a well-reasoned post by another participant. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three cites I am speaking of are already in the article. They would indicate at least a possibility that the court case is notable, even if the website isn't as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood what you meant. You're referring to references in the article. When you said it had been "cited three times," I thought you were saying the case had been cited as an authority in other cases or academic journals. The references in the article merely indicate news reporting, and WP:NOTNEWS. All we have are well-referenced statements that a case was decided and then reversed; effectively zero content. It's news reporting, and not of much, and no indication of notability. If the case were being cited as an authority, depending on how used, that could be an indicium of notability (which is why I was interested in them). But the three references now present are merely indications of news. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:48, 25 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine[edit]

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

Promotional material, self-published sources, peacockery, POV on a grand scale, non-notability Famousdog (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While founder Andrew Weil is notable, I was unable to find in-depth coverage of this center in independent sources, although people associated with the center are prolific in mentioning it and praising it in print. Cullen328 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The institution may or may not be notable. This text, however, is entirely unacceptable advertising and the entire article needs to start over from the beginning: ....an educational institution whose stated vision is to enhance the health and well-being of people and the planet and to lead the transformation of health care. Listed methods of achieving this goal include the creation, education, and supporting of a "community that embodies the philosophy and practice of healing-orientated medicine, addressing mind, body and spirit." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Weil himself is definitely notable, but I am not finding the in depth independent sourcing to support this. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 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. keep arguments don't address the essential issue of OR and lack of sources so this goes down on the delete side Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social progressivism[edit]

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

Original research. This article has no sources. There is no consistent usage of the term, and no literature devoted to it. TFD (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided which discuss the topic.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is deleted, it should probably be recreated as a redirect to progressivism. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Steve Dufour & WP:OR. Per postdlf, redirect to Progressivism should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with Progressivism. The topic does have notability (WP:N) yet, is dis-ambiguous (WP:DISAMBIG) with progressivism. Time might be provided for the transfer of the content.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. While the article as it stands lacks citations and has other serious issues, these are content issues and not reasons for deletion; the question for this debate is the notability of the topic, which is readily apparent in a minimal-effort source review. Notability requires that independent reliable source coverage exist, not that it be presently cited. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the defintions in your Google search should we use?
  - Social progressivism is the view that the basic concepts of social mores, human nature, and morality are not fixed throughout history....
  - "Social progressivism" is the label some historians have given to movements in this period [early 20th century] that worked not primarily for structural reforms in civil service and the parties....
  - this social progressivism was that it was the key of a new movement [in Belgium]
  - This extreme view of progressivism is known as 'romantic progressivism', while the more moderate view is 'social progressivism'.

TFD (talk) 08:42, 28 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. –MuZemike 23:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Arens[edit]

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

Article has continued for several years with only the anyone-can-edit IMDB as sole reference. A reader would not really know whether this person actually existed or not. And even with that, whether these appearances, if true, are truly "notable." They don't seem to be recorded anywhere else but in the self-edited IMDB. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this actor under the WP:GNG, only some credit listings, one of which I have added to the article. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:11, 28 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Bari[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this Bangladeshi film. One source is currently in the article. It is, I believe, in Bengali, and I can't get a translation from google. Based on the other sources provided by the article creator, I'm suspicious about its reliability. We don't just depend on English-language sources, and I'm reluctant to bring foreign films that may be genuinely notable to AFD, but I'm really not sure this is. it's unclear whether the film received wide release in Bangladesh, or if it was straight to video. The only coverage I can find is download or streaming sites. The article creator appears to be trying to create an article on every film related to Shakib Khan (and several apear to be non-notable/unverifiable). As yet the creator has been either unwilling or unable to participate in discussion. I would be quite happy if notability can be proven here, but I am doubtful. (Another possible search term here is "Daktar Bari".) Beloved Freak 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this nomination based on the information below provided by User:Ragib.--Beloved Freak 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, please allow me to translate the Bengali language reference cited here. The reference is from BDNews24.com, a widely read online news agency in Bangladesh. The article discusses the movies of the year 2007. It references the subject in two parts. First, it mentions the subject as:

ডাক্তারবাড়ি', 'আমার প্রাণের স্বামী', 'স্বামীর সংসার' -- এগুলোর মতো সুস্থধারার বেশ কিছু ছবি দেশীয় চলচ্চিত্রাঙ্গনে সুবাতাস নিয়ে আসে - Translation: Movies like Doctor Bari, Amar Praner Swami, and Swamir Sangsar brought a fresh breath to the movie industry of Bangladesh.

Next, it discusses the widely acclaimed movies of 2007. There it says: ডাক্তার বাড়ি। পরিচালনা আজিজুর রহমান। প্রযোজনা আনন্দমেলা সিনেমা। শাকিব খান, জনা, অমিত হাসান, শাবনাজ, সুচরিতা এবং এটিএম শামসুজ্জামান অভিনীত বড় বাজেটের ছবিটি ব্যবসা সফল হয়: Translation: Doctor Bari was directed by Azizur Rahman and produced by Anandamela Cinema. Shakib Khan, Jona, Amit Hasan, Shabnaz, Suchorita, and ATM Shamsuzzaman starred in the movie. And the big-budget movie was a commercial success.

By the way, for your information, the concept of "Straight-to-video" doesn't exist in Bangladeshi movie industry. A movie is meant to be released to movie theatres. There is a separate genre of movies made for TV which are called Tele-films. This is not one of them.

While I have no opinion about the AFD as for now, I do want to point out that the movie was starred by some of the top actors and actresses of the Bangladeshi film industry (Dhaliwood), and was a commercial hit according to BDNews. --Ragib (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful. Based on this information, I will withdraw the nomination as for me, that demonstrates enough notability (being called a "commercial hit", "widely acclaimed" etc), and it sounds like BDNews24.com is enough to satisfy WP:V.--Beloved Freak 08:47, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bunney[edit]

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

A BLP of an actress that appeared in Grange Hill for 2 years. According to IMDb, she has not appeared in anything else onscreen. I can't find anything written about her in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Nothing that indicates notability. Information, other than the fact she was in Grange Hill seems to be unverifiable. Beloved Freak 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of IMDb coverage is not final proof of non-notability - if nothing else, an actor may have gone on to have a notable career on the stage. However, I cannot find any coverage of any other appearances anywhere, so as it stands, we have one role in a TV series, whilst WP:NACTOR generally needs multiple roles. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, both a Google and Yahoo search didn't show any useful results except for a Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gayle[edit]

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

Writer who fails notability test in WP:AUTHOR Philafrenzy (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an article about him in the London Evening Standard, another with The Voice, an interview in the Independent. Also here and here. Here the Independent identifies him as one of the top agony advisers in the UK. He's mentioned specifically in the context of "lad-lit" in this piece in the New Statesman. Also in this book, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one. He's used as an example of a lad-lit author by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (Great Britain). There's a review for Life and Soul of the Party in the Mirror. A review of Mr Commitment in the Independent, another in the Victoria Advocate and one more in the Boston Globe. There's a review of the French translation of the same book in Le Parisien. A review of The Importance of Being a Bachelor in the Malaysian Star and another (very short) in the Mirror. The Malaysian star also has a review of Brand New Friend, including the comment "There’s chick-lit and bloke-lit. Of the latter genre, the stalwarts are probably Nick Hornby, Tony Parsons and Mike Gayle." And there are more book reviews behind paywalls see [15] and [16]. He's also been interviewed by the local BBC. TL;DR : Keep. passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR as a frequently named author in the "lad-lit" genre. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also another piece on him here. Reviews for Turning Thirty here and here. More paywall book reviews for My Legendary Girlfriend [17] and [18] plus a mention of a potential movie version in Hollywood Reporter. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above, plus the fact that Turning Thirty was a hugely successful book which was prominently displayed in bookshops for several years. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Very notable with lots of coverage around.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farman Nawaz[edit]

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

Lots of articles written by this journalist. Very little written about this journalist to establish notability. Singularity42 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I can gather by reading the article, it suggests that this person is particularly non-notable and it is lacking in reliable sources. Even if notability can be established and reliable sources exist, the article has significant POV problems, reads like an opinion-piece or an essay, is replete with non-encyclopedic trivial information.Agent 86 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content aside, I'm unable to find any notability-establishing coverage, and the article itself provides none. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:22, 28 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. –MuZemike 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Political Cartoons[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn in the light of recent changes to the article. I think the info should be merged elsewhere but that's outside the scope of this particular AfD. andy (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Contested prod. Extremely non-neutral synthesis with no supporting evidence - e.g much of Dr Seuss's work "was biased, racist, and even hateful", Spiegelman's work shows "opinionated racism", but the public found these cartoons to be "admirable" and "uplifting". From the author's comment that "This article may be deleted after a period of time but the information contained is currently necessary" I suspect this is a term paper. Fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. andy (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is someone's term paper, it probably got a large red "F". I think the nominator restrained himself in citing the policies that it was inconsistent with - WP:NOTESSAY and WP:FORUM are but two more that apply. Setting aside the factual inaccuracies, lack of sources, and verifiability of statements, the article is completely unclear on what it is to be about. The title suggests that it is about political cartoons created during WWII, but the article seems to be an indiscriminate list of people who either drew political cartoons during the war, or drew cartoons about the war long after it was over. That could be fixed with a re-write, so is not reason for deletion in and of itself, but the fundamental problems of the article still remain.Agent 86 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for numerous reasons as above, but also FORK of American propaganda during World War II. It does not seem to have occurred to the author that political cartoons might have existed outside the USA. Whilst the topic is notable, the scope is enormous and an appropriate article could not start from here. -- (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of the original article remains and even a name change has been proposed I'm happy to change to Keep --AJHingston (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a despicable and blatant PoV fork. The list is no more than a biased slur against American cartoonists, avoiding WP:UNDUE would require at the very least coverage of Nazi childrens' propaganda as well as treatment of both sides of the issue and attention to whether or not the degree of racism was out of proprortion to that acceptable in everyday culture of the period. That said, we already do that at American propaganda during World War II and quite well at that. It's a shame none of those people are still alive, otherwise we could BLP speedy this as an attack page. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Art Spiegelman is still alive and doesn't come too well out of this article as an apparent apologist for his father's alleged racism... andy (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable - see World War II in cartoons, for example. The poor state of the current draft is unimportant because it is our clear editing policy to welcome weak starts and to improve them rather than to delete them. Warden (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly encyclopedia-worthy article subject. Horrendous article. What the Colonel says is true about standard practice being to keep bad starts rather than to kill them. Flag it and tag it, keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the above keep votes: I agree entirely this is a notable topic that should have an article. That article is American propaganda during World War II, this is a POV fork of that article. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is going to exist, it ought to cover not only American political cartoons from World War II, but also political cartoons from other countries from the war. Then it won't be a fork of American propaganda during World War II. I wonder when the original author's semester ends, though; it would be better if other editors didn't write his assignment for him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that could be covered here which wouldn't already be covered elsewhere? American propaganda during World War II#Comic books and cartoons and Walt Disney's World War II propaganda production give coverage to this event. The notable authors themselves can have information about them in their own articles. This is obvious a notable topic, but one which is covered elsewhere. Dream Focus 07:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem to think that this was a purely American phenomenon, as if this were Hollywood history. There seems to be a need for a high level article with a global perspective. Warden (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Good point. If there are nations that we don't have articles for yet, or there is a global view to be presented, then this article has a reason to exist. British propaganda during World War II doesn't mention any cartoons at all. And you did find a book that covers this topic. Dream Focus 08:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does little (nothing?) to distinguish this topic from general topics of Editorial cartoon and Propaganda, and renders it largely a a trivial intersection between them and other existing articles on more specific topics that provided the instances of this general topic that occurred during WWII (David Low, American propaganda during World War II#Comic books and cartoons, Walt Disney's World War II propaganda production etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability clearly established per excellent improvements by editor Warden. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue. Does this article contribute anything that's not already done better elsewhere? andy (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the article seems to cover the subject well enough, and notability has been established. This article does have information not found elsewhere, and exists to show an overall view of this subject, and also can aid in navigation to various specific articles. Dream Focus 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable topic and the problems with the article have now been corrected. The article should be renamed something like Political cartoons of World War II though as the current name violates several of the naming conventions. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now sourced and improved compared with pre-AfD version, there have certainly been enough sources provided to indicate notability and potential for expansion. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article looks nothing like it did when it was proposed for AfD. The pre-AfD version definitely deserved deletion, but the newly-revised version is properly sourced to establish notability, the sources are reliable, and the information is neutral and international. OCNative (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Political cartoons produced during [random war] commented upon the events, personalities and politics of the war. Governments used them for propaganda and public information. Individuals expressed their own political views and preferences." Follow with an {{example farm}}. Rinse and repeat for a bland, generic, uninformative and unencyclopaedic article on any random war since the invention of the printing press. 10:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, but that's not what the AfD was about. Grounds for another AfD maybe? Anyway I was going to close this debate as a non-admin because of speedy keep but I don't think we're there yet. andy (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use this AfD to discuss these problems, rather than rushing to close it? Whilst many individual WWII-era cartoons and cartoonists may be notable, unless we have reliable third party sources describing "WWII Political Cartoons" as a genre, then that topic is not notable -- and an article that goes beyond boilerplate+examplefarm isn't possible without WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this AfD is contaminated by the earlier discussion which is about a different topic. I'm happy to AfD the current version of the article if any suggested merge fails, but that's for later. As it stands the current version is arguably notable but of course just because a thing is notable doesn't mean it needs a separate article. andy (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Subject is of cultural relevance, well sourced. Title seems to be appropriate, article quality is start class, possibly c class. In terms of the above debate, political cartoons from a contentious era can easily be a broad enough subject with enough available sources to be a great article. The article is good, the subject doesn't fit anywhere else very well(politics of WWII maybe?). i kan reed (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. –MuZemike 23:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations and interrelationships[edit]

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

PROD contested. Seems to be an unreferenced, unencyclopaedic essay. XXX antiuser ^eh? 08:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public relations as the topic already exists. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~,Delete as above; badly translated (?) essay. Not sure what is sourced and what is opinion, so hard to perform a merge. Kuru (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that's a fairly unlikely combination of terms. Kuru (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure the title is all that plausible a search term. This text is, well: The Statement of Mexico: Public Relations practice is the art and social science to analyze trends, predict consequences, advise the leaders of the organization, and implement programs that are planning on activities that serve both the interests of the organization and the public interest. From some sense the above definition can be stretched a sense of public relations management system within a company or organization that emphasizes a relationship both internally (between members of a company or organization) and external (with outside companies or organizations, such as society). PR purposes existence in a company is to create mutual understanding and shared goals between the company and the public (society) to the good name of a company or organization in the eyes of society. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 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 speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G7), author blanked the page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen ada spencer[edit]

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

Completely non-notable individual. Article written as a 'vanity page' by the subject's great-grandchild. Two editors PROD-tags removed ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. I note that the creator of the article (who has only contributed to this article) blanked it after it was nominated for deletion, stating "Deleted article as can be bothered to argue if wikipedia can't be bothered to check items properly!!". Fails notability policies.Agent 86 (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you type in Miss Korrie, Music Hall she will come up under Populatrity, Walter Lambert. Wikipedia may not be a Genealogy directory but Miss Korrie was part of Music Hall history a history that is being lost. Your comments are rather ignorant and rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahSF (talk • contribs)
Ignorant and rude I may be, but I am at least familiar with WP:GHITS. ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't give to hoots just delete it and get on with your life — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahSF (talk • contribs) 10:42, 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE[edit]

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

Unremarkable independent film. Doesn't even rate an IMDB page. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klownboy is an "Unremarkable independent film" -a film that you have not seen?? you know enough about it to label it unremarkable?? That my friend is ignorance! IMDB only allows contributions if you BUY a membership -the concept of this film opposes such things. If you were familiar with Transgressive Cinema you would realize this. Do some research before you judge something that you do not understand MikeWazowski -This is an unusual film, not your run of the mill IMDB trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klownboy (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While it's not relevant to this deletion discussion, you should really check your "facts" - the IMDB does not require membership payments for listings. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this is truly a notable film, then it shouldn't be too difficult to reference the article with some reliable sources. If you are unsure how to do that, then read through the pages, and if nothing else, ask for some assistance. — Ched : ? 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and possibly salt?) See Klownboy Circus of Gore and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klownboy. I've checked the "external links" given in the article and did further searches via Google books, news, internet. There is zero coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. The subject comprehensively fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Re the external links in the article:

Freak Tension film review - blog review, not a reliable source for establishing notability
Dread Central film review - not a review at all. It's a reprint of the press release, a link to the trailer, and a one-line comment on the trailer: "After watching the trailer, I'm still not at all sure what the movie is about. I've got an idea: You watch the trailer and then tell me."
Klownboy Circus of Gore Official YouTube Page - video, self-published, not independent of the subject
St. Paul punk trio Mommy S3z No perform the Klownboy theme song - ditto
Mommy S3z No Taking the Fun Outta the Clown Music Video - ditto
Gore Gore Gore Facebook page featuring Klownboy - Facebook page, not a reliable source or an indication of notability. "Featuring" consists of one post with a 2 line blurb and a link to the trailer.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE SAVE SAVE! Although IMDB claims to publish pages without a paid membership, it is a well known fact within the underground film community that your work has a much better chance of being listed on the site if you pay them. We reject IMDB. It is useless -flooded with mainstream material.

"self-published, not independent of the subject" -this comment is simply incorrect. The wiki-editors make countless errors here and see no need to verify anything that they do not want to. Am I being bullied due to the subject matter of the film/contribution? This is discriminatory. Due to financial reasons, our film cannot get the coverage that a film of a large budget can afford. This is another example of financial censorship. Corruption of Wikipedia Klownboy (talk)Klownboy —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment IMDb is not considered a reliable source either. This article won't be deleted because the film is not in IMDb. If the decision is to delete it will be because the subject fails to pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Your arguments to keep the article would be far more effective if you can point to even one of the criteria there that it fulfils. As far as I can see it has been screened a total of two times in one city back in 2009, and that's it. It has no distributor, has never been released on DVD, has appeared in no film festivals (transgressive or otherwise), and has received no reviews apart from that one blog post. AfD discussions are not about the relative merit of the subject. They are purely about whether it fulfils Wikipedia's notability criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM. ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE! -fails? In what sense? What type of response is that? I think my argument merits more than just a catchphrase as a response. Klownboy (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Klownboy[reply]

Comment He's referring to the fact that it fails to pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Please read them, so you'll have a better understanding of what this AfD process is about. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~for great justice~~ in particular because it does not meet this notability criteria for films and lacks several inline reliable sources compliant to these policies for establishing notability about the article in question, but only contains several external links. In particular, it has not to provide sufficient evidence that:

It has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics,
It is notable in a historical context,
It has received a major award for excellence in some topic in filmmaking,
It was selected for preservation in a national archive, or
It is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to draw attention to the fact that the term/name "Klownboy" is somewhat common on the Internet. If a Google search is done using the term, the first site that appears is our youtube page. This must hold some importance as far as proof of internet popularity is concerned, and that seems to be what this discussion is about. If something -ANYTHING is popular enough, it meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article as in this fine example :*Rebecca Black Song. As time passes, the KLOWNBOY page will be refined as long as it is not deleted. This film is extremely unique, and holds artistic merit sufficient for a listing. Klownboy (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]

Klownboy, you seem to be misunderstanding again. This AfD is not about "proof of internet popularity", but exclusively about failure to meet the minimum requirements of notability for inclusion detailed in WP:NFILM. Please stick to the points of that page. Either it meets one of the points or it doesn't. If you can argue it does, please show a reliable reference. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the internet in regards to alternative film culture. That's for another place, another time. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read for a better understanding of the artistic perspective and value of this work Thank you Klownboy (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]

In what way, though, does that help the article meet any of the criteria I listed above? The Rebecca Black Song is an exception because it continues to gain multiple independent reliable inline sources taken from several different news stations covering the same topic. Note that, for the purposes of this film, YouTube is not a reliable source. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N as there does not appear to be significant coverage of the topic from multiple secondary sources that are considered reliable. The closest possibility is dreadcentral.com, but it is only a mention of the trailer and not an actual review like the Wikipedia article's "External links" section says. I conducted a search engine test but did not find good coverage anywhere, but I'm open to seeing what others find. I just think that for a film this recent, there should be a reasonable amount of coverage online, especially when I've seen similar works get such coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[19]] The very nature of this film prohibits it from becoming a "mainstream" work. Because it registers very low on the pop culture barometer of cinematic success (due to an extremely low budget that results in financial censorship) it is regarded as much too unpopular for wikipedia inclusion. If this measure is applied to "invisible artists" or artists that identify themselves as outsiders, they too will be disregarded by institutions that are dominated by mainstream knowledge. The very nature of underground cinema and artwork -the elements that make it interesting, and unique, are the elements that your website discriminates against. If there was a heap of money behind this production, It would be accepted by your staff. Klownboy (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]
Please realize that you have a conflict of interest here. Of course you will argue for your topic's inclusion. On Wikipedia, we follow policies and guidelines to include topics because we want to make sure that we can provide readers coverage about a topic based on information from reliable sources. A sentence like the one in "Cinematic Style" needs to be backed by a reliable source, and like I said, there is no coverage from reliable sources for this topic. This does not prevent you from having off-Wikipedia websites talking about the film, and there is a cutoff to what can be included on Wikipedia itself. There are certain cutoffs for bands (as you can imagine, there are many non-notable bands) and for schools (for which there is not much to say about many). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you include an important subject that does not conform to your policies and guidelines? There exists topics/personalities/institutions/movements/schools of thought/works of art/concepts, etc... that do not conform to your guidelines. Are these unique subjects judged invalid and automatically excluded from your encyclopedia based on your rigid set of rules?

I am the most reliable source concerning this film. This is a fact. I know more about this film than anyone on the face of the earth. Unless I am deemed unreliable via substantial proof, my position as the foremost expert on Klowboy Circus of Gore remains intact. This creates a unique situation in this instance. Please verify that I am an unreliable source of information concerning this movie and I will evaporate into digital obscurity. Klownboy (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Klownboy[reply]
You're missing the point here. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, and I mean really read it from beginning to end. It is a key content policy of Wikipedia and it's non-negotiable. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:ABOUTSELF says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as... the article is not based primarily on such sources." An article about the topic needs to have content mainly from secondary sources. To respond about important subjects, we editors cannot personally determine what is important or not. We rely on outside coverage to guide us. There are certainly subjects that gain importance because there are journalists or academics who at last explore them. Perhaps this topic could receive coverage someday as an example of Cinema of Transgression, but it is not being covered as an example now. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, lacks sources, only contributor has a conflict of interest. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:46, 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TruceWorks[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a social networking website that does not indicate notability. I've been unable to unearth any reliable sources covering the site. Could possibly be speedy deleted but as it has been around for a couple of months I nominated it for PROD first, and now AfD. bonadea contributions talk 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. 2010 website promoting itself on Wikipedia; no showing of long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy presentation of a new product. No sources showing. Carrite (talk) 22:36, 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) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbosbek Makhstaliev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Zanoni (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never competed in a fully pro league, and lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyne Randoe[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a reporter and WP:BIO. very limited coverage in gnews and trove, the coverage is indepth and merely confirms she is reporter. no indepth coverage nor peer recognition. like all AfDs comments are welcome especially from 3 people I've had recent interaction from. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concur that there appears to be limited coverage in traditional sources. The question that arises is whether a media personality is notable due to the fact that they are consistently in the media or not. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, being in the media is not the same as indepth coverage. just like someone who appears every day as a weather presenter or traffic reporter does not mean they're automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of direct coverage of this person as a person. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 12:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails all criteria at WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 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 delete: copyright violation (and unambiguous advertising). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Django Reinhardt HMV Sessions[edit]

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

Non-notable, there are dozens (hundreds?) of Reinhardt comps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.mosaicrecords.com/prodinfo.asp?number=190-MD-CD.--Michig (talk) 06:00, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach[edit]

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

Delete I can't see anything in this except a textbook case of WP:OR. I mean, it's in the title. From what I can tell, this article is mostly based on G. Bianconi and A.-L. Barabási (2001). "Bose–Einstein Condensation in Complex Networks". Physical Review Letters. 86 (24): 5632–5635. arXiv:cond-mat/0011224. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..86.5632B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5632. It's a highly-cited article, but not one that is so influential as to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Whatever there is to save can be merged in Bose–Einstein condensation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Come on, what REALLY is the problem with this article? It's not original research, it contains thirteen references which have expanded and clarified on the original article (Bianconi & Barabási). The tag for missing citations should be removed. What is it about the title that implies OR? Many editors, including myself, have contributed. The article is highly cited - how can an article be highly cited, yet not influential? It definitely should NOT be merged with Bose–Einstein condensate, since it is not describing the physics of a physical Bose gas, and anyone proposing such a merger demonstrates a lack of understanding of the article. This article is not about physics, it is about network theory, and the WP:Physics tag should be removed. A link from the BEC page should be sufficient. Let this be decided by those who have some understanding of the article. The mathematics are identical, and the deeper principles connecting the two are part of the subject of the article. Perhaps the choice of the title of the article is unfortunate since it implies such a connection, but this is no reason to discard it out of hand. This is the second attempt to delete this article, the first one failed, this one should also.

I note that you think the title might be problematic and that very few of the references are about "a network theory approach to Bose-Einstein condesnates". I am wondering what you think the article should be called? Not every referenced useful bit of text belongs in an encyclopedia. What in your opinion is the subject of this article and why is it notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the introduction to the article, particularly the fourth and fifth paragraphs - I think this a fairly good answer to your question. I'm not sure what the best title would be - something that made it clear that the underlying mechanism of Bose-Einstein condensation is being applied to situations other than a physical Bose gas, it this case, to network theory. Perhaps "Application of Bose-Einstein condensation concepts to network theory", but that seems a little wordy. The way I came to be interested in this is via econophysics - the application of the mathematical apparatus developed for physics, particularly statistical physics, in the analysis of economic problems. This should not be construed as a confusion of physics and economics - the analogies and their limitations should be carefully delineated. The situation is similar to the connection between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy, but in this case, the connection is much tighter. PAR (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Bose–Einstein condensation in networks, or Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)? --Lambiam 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)" as suggested. Sufficiently astray from WP:OR to be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and agree move to a less problematic title if one can be agreed. I've no particular opinion, but perhaps the existing suggestions might be reversed, e.g. "Network theory (Bose-Einstein condensation mechanism)" etc. Keep decision does not depend on choice of title. - Pointillist (talk) 21:20, 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 delete. This article was userfied to User:GroundZ3R0 002/The Drug In Me Is You after this AFD was opened but there are still enough opinions here to determine a consensus to "delete". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Drug In Me Is You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL. Not even released yet. Created by the same band members/group that have ruthlessly promoted Ronnie Radke and the band Falling in Reverse, recreating articles on them almost 20 times on Wikipedia following deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews. and google reveals mainly directory listings and mirrors. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some brief announcements for this upcoming release (e.g., [20][21]), but an article still feels premature considering the band does not currently have an article. Even if they did, I'm not yet convinced there's enough significant coverage for the album at this time to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS - perhaps in another month when it's closer to the release date. Gongshow ^Talk 04:09, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konkrete Jungle[edit]

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

Unestablished notability. Lots of false-positive ghits. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC Pentadecimal (talk) 22:16, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana F. Marks[edit]

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

Marked for three years with a "possibly non-notable" tag. She wrote four books published by the same little house and presented to some educators. I'd have to agree with the tags. Raymie (t • c) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Nothing here that Google couldn't throw up very quickly, and I'd say that the subject is non-notable. Time to set those tags free and can the permastub. Brammers (talk/c) 15:06, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute to Nordberg[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. created by a single purpose editor who's name is like a band member... nothing in gnews and google reveals directory listings. sources in article are unreliable. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, notability unestablished article.Curb Chain (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Self-promotion. Does not meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brasileiras e Brasileiros[edit]

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

No references (except IMDB which is generally not considered RS) so no assertion of notability. (If somehow kept then the plot needs to be rewritten so it can be read.) RJFJR (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are major network telenovelas in a large country not typically notable? Obviously if this was an American show, we'd never question its notability. I see lots of references to it in more recent news articles (the actual show not just the phrase), unfortunately I didn't stumble on brazilian newspaper archives from 1990-91. But snips are available to show such coverage exists.[22][23][24][25]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:11, 17 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) 01:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salem el-Masri[edit]

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

Negative BLP that seems to fails WP:GNG. There is only one primary source and primary sources do not count towards notability. IQinn (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails notability requirements by a large margin. Should be considered for speedy deletion in fact. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not clear if nom did a wp:before search, but the indicated ref does not appear to be the only source. Also, a search of his name in Arabic would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i did. Yes i saw you just added one source. You have the page number? I could not verify this information online. The reference link did also not show the information. You have a better link? So far the article was only based on the testimony of one witness found in one primary source. I searched again but with no results. I guess we are not the CIA. I do not mind if the article will be deleted or not but it should at least fulfill WP:GNG so we should be able to find in depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. IQinn (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one discussion of him in the book. For now, I just added the one at pages 146-48. But the additional material written about him elsewhere in the book adds to the reflection of his notability. The link shows the information perfectly to me -- what country are you editing from? I am in the U.S. It has to have significant RS coverage, but it may have that even in one source -- significant does not mean multiple. Have you also done a search of his name in Arabic? And have you searched under "al-Masri" as well?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i tried also some other spellings of his name. WP:GNG says: "Multiple sources are generally expected." and i do not see the book "Inside Al Qaeda" is primarily about him and seems not to cover him in depth. Do you have that book? It would also helpful to know more about him to have a basis for more searches. So far there is only one sentence in the article based on that book. I just feel there is simply not enough information available to write a quality BLP unless we might find further sources but others might see this differently. IQinn (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, multiple sources are not a hard and fast rule -- and in fact, we have multiple sources here (GNG does not exclude primary sources in that quote). He is covered in some depth in the book -- there is no need that the book be primarily about him (as you seem to be suggesting above). There are now a number of sentences in the article based on the book, which is put out by a top-level RS university press. Are you saying you checked in Arabic, and found nothing, in addition to not seeing this book?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i searched in Arabic too, but i am not good in Arabic so other might also try. WP:GNG says that primary sources do not count toward notability. So we have only one source (the book). I do disagree that this one source cover him in depth. It seems to be the case that the book simply mirrors the few information from Jamal al-Fadl testimony. IQinn (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you were unable to read the text of the book? In addition, GNG says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Here, we have a very-high level RS, and the depth of the coverage is more than trivial.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. My assumption is based on the fact that you added the book references to information that come from the primary source testimony and there seems to be no other additional information from the book that can not be found in the testimony. Or?

I seem to be right "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" and sorry i still doubt that the book covers him in depth. Still borderline notability so far and i hope we can find more sources. I also consider a possible merge into another article. One source with limited information is also problematic in terms of NPOV and BLP and simply hard to write a quality biography you might also check what Jimbo Wales has said about that. Let's hope for more sources. I myself would like to know more. IQinn (talk) 06:35, 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) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Borderline, but the reference to the book that has now been added appears substantial enough to confer notability status.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per epeefleche.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:32, 25 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) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electron Solar Energy[edit]

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

Speedy contested, no indication of notability of this organization; Google Books shows 15 press releases with no independent coverage. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 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) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find significant coverage from reliable sources to evidence notability under GNG, no claims of notabiilty under any SNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:15, 28 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 Cellador. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Horiuchi[edit]

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

no notability shown outside of his band, Cellador. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 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) 01:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I will give users an opportunity to add sourcing. Because I feel like that is the issue here more than notability itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cellador the nom is correct that there's no independent notability, but it's a reasonable search term. There is not sufficient sourcing to establish individual notability under the GNG, and under any metric of notability, notability requires verifiable evidence, so I must disagree with the claim that notability isn't at issue here. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:17, 28 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) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkest Night[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a topic not verifiable, much less notable. It almost seems like a hoax article that has been under the radar for so long. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any indication of notability (or existence, for that matter). Qrsdogg (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Music (song)[edit]

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

not notable rper WP:NSONGS, as there is no reliably sourced information, no charts, no awards etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the closest to significant coverage I could find, and the only concrete info revealed is that the song was used as the theme for MTV's Making the Band 4 - that tidbit can certainly be added to the article(s) of the band and/or TV series. I'm not finding anything else that would warrant an individual article for the song; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:53, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WildClaw Theatre Company[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail WP:N. Unable to find sources beyond the company's own releases and some local media coverage. Nothing to indicate notability outside of local theatre scene. Yunshui (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It only takes a few good sources to create a decent start class article. One like this from the Chicago Tribune gives you an RS from an important publication for starters. The article has a couple decent sources. Since the theater is covered by Time Out (company) the place has some notability. However, no notable actors are mentioned on the article and Chicago has a bunch of theater companies that have proven to be fertile grounds for acting talent. I am not sure which way I want to go on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat weaker delete I'll admit, I didn't realise the Tribune had such a wide circulation - definitely a regional source rather than a local one, as I at first thought. I will try and incorporate some of the material therein into the article either later today or tomorrow, and see if it looks any better. Still unconvinced of notability, but I'll grant it could maybe be shuffled up to start-class... Yunshui (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having added what pertinent information I can from the Tribune article, I'm still unconvinced this passes WP:N. Although the Tribune article is extensive, I've found little factual information which contributes to the Wikipedia page Yunshui (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 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) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I remain unconvinced about the notability of this recently formed theatre. Fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 25 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youhei Shimizu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Incorrectly nominated for deletion via PROD, but it survived a VfD (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Youhei_Shimizu) in 2005. Reason given in the prod was "Seems to fail WP:COMPOSER. Poorly sourced bio of living person." The-Pope (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 14:22, 16 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) 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, I wasn't able to come up with anything solid. There's a fair bit to search through on Gweb search, so it's certainly possible I missed something, and it feels as if there should be more in the way of sources, but ... --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage here to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:20, 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. closing as a soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Dacica Aeterna[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization by Wikipedia standards. I have searched and only found user generated content website mentions such as youtube and vimeo. I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability, and as such this appears to fail WP:CLUB as well as WP:ARTIST. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 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) 00:46, 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Capability RFID[edit]

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

Not a recognized or commonly-used term; references indicate it is a marketing term used by a single non-notable company (Intelliflex, which has an article created by the same person who created this). —Chowbok ☠ 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 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) 00:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could be placed under the article for RFID for now. Rxlxm (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the term "Extended Capability RFID" is one that Intelleflex uses to market its products, it is also relevant to broadening the discussion of new categories of RFID that are based on industry standards published by ISO and EPC. It could be merged into the broader RFID category but this may stifle discussion on the value and applicability of these new standards. Kevin Payne, Intelleflex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpayneIntelleflex (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Spam Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 29 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) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Abolition of Work[edit]

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

I see no evidence that the essay is important; I doubt it is even important enough for a redirect to the author . It was apparent listed for the old VfD process in 2003, but I cannot located the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, there's a fair amount of hits in Google Books. I don't have the gumption for overhauling the essay (I've abolished real work for tonight), but I think there are sufficient mentions for a weak keep. Please have a look, whenever you have a moment. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with some caveats. This needs better sourcing of critical discussion of the essay. And it's ranking as a "mid-importance" article for WikiProject Philosophy is way-out... However, I think DGG is incorrect that the essay is an unimportant one. Among anarchists this essay is well-known and still quite frequently discussed. My impression is that it's one of the best-known contributions to modern anarchist thought, although I am not an expert on this matter. TheGrappler (talk) 16:08, 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) 00:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable essay. Easy call. This is probably a notable topic if someone were to get serious about writing a sourced piece, but they'll still need to engage in WP:BLOWTHEMOTHERUP at that time. This is unsalvageable. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'll get out of the way. My bad. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheGrappler is right: this is one of the best-known modern anarchist essays. its mid-importance ranking for the Anarchist Task Force of WikiProject Philosophy reflects that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of sources which confirm the notability of this essay. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple research on the subject would have removed any doubts the nominator had as to the notability of the subject. Good faith should be assumed by Wikipedia editors, and so the nominator should have considered the possibility that this article was created due to its notability, and then perform a little digging to find the evidence of notability the creator forgot to include. AFD is not clean up. The need to clean and wikify this article is not just cause for deletion. --Cast (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs work, the essay is obviously notable, especially among anarchists. --Violarulez (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Villages (Southern Highlands, New South Wales)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. This seems a loose term that only locals use but lacks third party coverage for it to be of encyclopaedic value especially for use wider in surrounding areas or New South Wales.[26]. nor is it a term officially accepted by the Geographic Names Board of NSW. trove search doesn't come up with much either. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - read the article - All of the Northern Villages made up the previous Mittagong (Natai) Shire., look at the template at the bottom of the article - effectively the template and the article tie together, a small bit of judicious editing could simply establish that the article is an aka for the former shire - which in itself was notable and indeed it is well worth clarifying. Deletion is not the way to go with problem, some careful editing would be much better. Satu Suro 01:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do we have reliable sources for this? glad you can join me again in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so civil and nicey - this was a nuisance afd and you should admit it - I am not glad to see afds like this - just because you read one way does not mean there are other ways of tackling the problem - if you cannot think laterally I am not here to teach you how to do so. Satu Suro 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do we have reliable sources to cover this unreferenced article? LibStar (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not replying due to your message at my talk page Satu Suro 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's a legitimate question to establish notability for this subject. but you have the right not to respond. regards. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article might not adequately express it yet, but these villages were one of the earliest outlying areas from Sydney settled after European settlement in Australia Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that may be true but where are the sources to establish notability for this term. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "term that only locals use" - the problem with that is? It is a term widely used (even if only by locals), it is verifiable and it is encyclopedic. The relevance of the GNB NSW search is a mystery to me - searching the same database for "Riverina" does not show any such place either! I get the same result for Macquarie Towns too!! GNB NSW is a good tool for searching a specific location but not so much for things that are more social constructs (but still real, verifiable and encyclopedic) such as this one. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still no sources provided from 3 keep votes. Riverina is widely used term around Australia, enter it in gnews or trove. trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=riverina&l-availability=y Just because other geographic terms exist doesn't mean this one is valid. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Riverina" and "Macquarie Towns" examples were specifically to demonstrate that your use of GNB NSW is meaningless. I have given you my opinion of your gnews search before. Stock standard google websearch shows it as a widely used term. You havent answered my question about why "local" means "non-notable" - IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. I would guarantee there are plenty of good sources available at the Wingecaribee Library. Think about all these "keep" votes - here and in some of your other recent AfD nominations - is everyone wrong except you? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you should have provided sources in your initial vote. Shame look below, it's a delete vote. WP:ADHOM attacks are not encouraged. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have to provide anything in return for having an opinion. It is up to the closing editor to consider how much weight to place on my comment. Also, I did not make any ADHOM attack and your accusation that I did is in bad faith. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"is everyone wrong except you?" is ADHOM if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a simple question for you to think about. I wonder if you will, however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per the lack of reliable sources covering the term and significant coverage establishing notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The local Council obviously considers that the area exists and is notable per the draft DCP Section A 4:2 of the DCP is interesting reading - "History and heritage context of the Northern Villages". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the WSC community profile continually refers to the Northern Villages as a discrete unit. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABC news article about the extension of sewerage services to the Northern Villages. A proper search will, I am sure, yield yet more sources. Certainly deletion appears out of the question. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admittedly a passing mention by the local MP in parliament but it puts the lie to the claim that the term is used locally only. The villages were nearly burnt down in 2002. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources Mattinbgn has identified are perfectly sufficient. Incidentally, a ga.gov.au search for "Wheatbelt" (probably one of WA's best known regions) turns up nothing too. Orderinchaos 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Nothing like a good AFD to bring the RSSs out of the woodwork.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources from User:Mattinbgn. I'm sure there are also plenty of dead tree sources in the area that aren't available on the Internet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:02, 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.