Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 30

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yjm321[edit]

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

its just a kind of test page Socialservice (talk) 22:11, 30 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! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Esposito[edit]

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

Lots of claims to notability, but I'm not seeing anything that fulfills WP:BIO criteria. No real major awards; no non-trivial coverage in a major media source. Prod tag added in May was removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources outside of industry papers. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person and CEO of non-notable business. Google News search finds only press releases. References at the article are not to major independent Reliable Sources (except that I don't know what to make of the Microsoft profile). Overall, notability not demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google and Yahoo web searches didn't unearth any notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's possible that such a law may exist and apply to some local email lists or discussion groups but without sources or significant coverage, there's no way to verify it. Please see verifiability, not truth. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gundlach's Law[edit]

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

I have rather doubtfully declined a blatant-hoax speedy on this and bring it here to give its author time to defend it if he can. Sources provided do not mention either Gundlach or his Law, and searches find nothing relevant. If not a hoax, there is no evidence that this is more than something made up one day. Fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I am executing my response properly. I did not see anywhere to add a comment so I am editing the exiting comment to add mine. No slight is intended by this action.

The charge is that this page is a hoax. As the author, I would like to know the basis of the charge.

This page makes two assertions: First, it provides an axiom that, as discussion continues, the likelihood that the subject of zombies will be interjected, increases. Second, it credits a person named David Gundlach with the formulation of that axiom.

The first is pratically tautological. The second can only be disproven by evidence that someone else has already made this observation or that David Gundlach either does not exist or did not make the observation. As the article is modeled on Godwin's Law, I would note that the citations on that page are basically blog entries which, according to my reading of the guidelines, is not sufficient. Are you suggesting that this article would be satisfactory if Mr. Gundlach created a blog entry expounding his principle?

Is the objection based on the subject matter? If so, there are literally dozens of Wikipedia entries regarding zombies - several cited in this page - that should also be deleted.

Zombie references are pervasive in our society. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate often refers to "Zombie Economics" as shorthand for economic beliefs that have been disproven but still persist. I also cited zombie references in a published academic paper and on the US CDC web site. A google search on the word "zombie" returns 18,400,000 pages of results. Surely, this attests to the truth of Gundlach's Law. (By comparison, google "nazi" and you will receive only 7,780,000 pages of results. By that measure, if Gundlach's Law is a hoax, Godwin's Law is even more so.)

I respectfully, but passionately, submit that the charge that Gundlach's Law is a hoax is baseless and capricious. I invite my accuser to contest any point I have made here or in the post.

I have also made a good faith offer to edit the page and remove any objectionable material.

Thank you for your considerationBcrousseau (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC). — BBcrousseau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Bcrousseau, the point of the nomination for deletion is not that it is a hoax, but that there is inadequate sourcing which is the responsibility of the author. Please provide adequate sources. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Reply by nominator: the page was originally proposed for speedy deletion as a hoax, but as I told you on your talk page I declined that nomination and brought it here instead, proposing deletion on different grounds.

I also put on your talk page extracts from the relevant policies, the most important being WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The essence of your article is that David Gundlach has coined the law stated. Where is a reliable published source to confirm that?

Even if you produce a published statement by Gundlach, the WP:Notability standard requires more: you need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - evidence that people independent of Gundlach have found his law important enough to write comment about. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article refers to Mr Gundlach as "an obscure data specialist in the United States", I think it quite possible that these sources - outside self-published, blogs or forums - may prove elusive. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete More like Gundlach's Original Research. There are absolutely no independent sources that discuss this idea. Much like a zombie, this article shouldn't have been brought back from the dead in the first place. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE I've recommended this article for immediate deletion as Nonsense, and as a hoax, and I am quite frankly in shock that this article can remain alive for this long. Even with good faith... I mean "zombies" for crying out loud. But why should we let the truth get in the way of wikipedia articles.... /sarcasm CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I am posting in right spot. I am defending this article.

This article is mainly pointing out the use of Euphemisms in language. Euphemisms in language are well documented over and over again, and it seems that the English language used by Americans has the highest rate of this. It seems that after every major award show or from a high rated television series new words are used as euphemisms. This happens on a yearly basis. Example just a few years ago “Battlestar Gallatica” used “Frack” in use of a four letter word. Our local high school had to have a board meeting and a whole school public awareness to ban the made up word “Frack”.

Gundlach’s observation is that Zombies and its many synonyms are being interjected into everyday speech at a rising rate. This was not unnoticed by the CDC(Center for Disease Control) as they also used this in their text to help gain attention for their (Emergency Preparedness and Response) public announcements. People use these terms to describe tiredness, lack of brightness, drunkenness, among other reasons. These terms are used on a daily basis. “People at that company follow orders like they are Zombies.” Or “The baby cried all night, I didn’t get any sleep; I am like the walking dead today.” These have become common place in our language. Gundlach obviously chose “Zombies” for a specific reason. He knew using his keen intellect that this would draw attention to this form of doublespeak. He also knows that this very idea of so many euphemisms can change History. How can you teach History when the words that you are reading mean something different than they were originally intended?

So as far as documentation goes you can see this has been covered many times over. And further research or verifiability would only take as much as typing in “euphemisms” into say (Google search, Yahoo search, or Wikipedia itself) 63.163.76.146 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)JRS[reply]

Yes, you can get lots of hits about "euphemism", and we already have an article Euphemism, and similarly an article about Zombie. What this article is about is a supposed "Law" announced by someone called "Gundlach", and I just Googled "Gundlach's Law" and got exactly three hits derived from this article and three which were irrelevant. No one has produced any references to confirm that such a "Law" has been published in any reliable source, or that anyone else has commented about it or discussed it. Read WP:Original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery." JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious. Lack of sources. Blatant Rubbish. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --unencyclopedic and unreferenced. Had a good laugh, though. --Pgallert (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry JohnCD, I understood that the post had been moved to a different process but did not realize that it was no longer being considered a hoax.

As I understand the current objection, while the validity of Gundlach’s Law is accepted in concept, the term has not gained sufficient currency to qualify for posting on wikipedia. In other words, there are two remaining objections: the question of David Gundlach’s existence and the lack of citations for Gundlach’s Law by reliable sources.

Addressing the second point first. I, too, am unable to find another reliable source. The reason I posted was that I often use Wikipedia to look up terms I see on the internet that are unfamiliar to me. I envisioned the same scenario for people encountering Gundlach’s Law for the first time.

As far as the second, I think we need to seriously consider the implications. This is basically saying that, unless you’re some hot shot lawyer with the IFF or the cofounder of a corporation, you are unworthy of coining a new “law.” Perhaps I am deluding myself but my conception of the web – and wikipedia, in particular – is much more egalitarian than that. Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, not withstanding, most of us live our lives in relative obscurity. Would you argue that personal notoriety should trump originality or imagination?

Today, we see a world where the concentration of wealth and power and the attendant repression of the individual continues unabated. The Internet, even now under attack by those who seek to control it, is perhaps our last, best hope to preserve unrestricted, uncensored exchange of ideas and Wikipedia is one of the leading vessels of that hope. I understand the need for standards and I am not for a second suggesting that the deletion of Gundlach’s Law for failure to conform precisely to those standards would constitute censorship.

But the guidelines themselves note that it is sometimes appropriate to make exceptions. Will it benefit Wikipedia to make a statement that ideas are welcome based on their originality and creativity rather than the prestige of the person that gives them voice?

I say yes.

With that, I will await your decision. I do not intend to belabor this or post again unless a new objection or question is raised. Whatever your decision, I appreciate the opportunity to defend the post and I applaud your open-mindedness in saving the post from speedy deletion.Bcrousseau (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)— BBcrousseau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: you have not quite understood. It is not suggested that we delete this because Gundlach is "not famous enough" to propose a law: the question is not about him but about his "law", whether there are reliable sources to show that other people have found it interesting and important enough to comment about.

The internet is certainly a place for promulgating new ideas, but that is explicitly not Wikipedia's role: an encyclopedia is not a place for first publication. A fundamental policy is Wikipedia:no original research, and a key statement in that policy (at the foot of the early paragraph "Using sources") is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."

When Mike Godwin first proposed Godwin's Law, it would not have qualified for a Wikipedia article; but over time, as the references to that article show, it has been the subject of independent comment and discussion, so now it does. But notice that Godwin proposed it in 1990, and it did not have an article until 2001. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - C'mon. Kilmer-san (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it could be a notable hoax. But whether it's a hoax or not, it's not notable by Wikipedia criteria and policies for hoaxes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boss Corporation products[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no encyclopaedic content, no sourcing, WP:NOTADVERTISING Kilmer-san (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for this absolutely useless list. A case could be made for g11 as well. Safiel (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this list is not even a real article that is just a list of pointless info. Could be an advert, but really just not encyclopedic and not needed. --Bsapp7 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a contrarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.189.80 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a regular closing admin at AFD I really should comment that battleground behaviour in AFDs is extremely disruptive especially when the perpetrators appear to be inventing their own inclusion criteria. No-one has accepted the additional sources provided and the consensus based on policy is clear once all the childish argumentation and name calling has been excluded Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Tatasopoulos[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage or other indicia of notability of this singer. Tagged for notability since 2010. The result at the prior AfD was no consensus, with the closer indicating "This has been a poorly-attended debate ... Please note that in the circumstances, it will be in order to list this at AfD again in early course." Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would probably go with weak keep. However, I found text that was copied from the subject's website with only trivial changes, so I have tagged with g12.~~ Safiel (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This recently survived AfD. I have deleted the identified copyvio. There is an excellent reference listed in the article which is in the Greek language that has been written by a Greek-American journalist who writes for "Voice of America". There is no rational reason to delete this article. The only reason that the last AfD was "no consensus" was because the recommended deletion was not withdrawn after the excellent reference was introduced. However, the reference was not criticised. It is a good reference that enables this article to meet WP:GNG. In fact, Epeefleche commended me on my research (and it wasn't easy finding that reference). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the time of the initial AfD, I wasn't sure that the media group article that Nipso points to was an RS. I'm now convinced it is not. The owner of the media group that created that article is the web designer for the subject of this article -- see Athina Krikeli. That's a clear COI, as the coverage is not "independent". And in any event, that would not provide us with sufficient coverage under GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. Obviously she isn't taking commissions off his gigs but she clearly cared enough about the subject to set him up with a website. Whether or not she was paid for doing that it still indicates a "friendly" connection. However, the author of the article is also notable in her own right (and does not rely on publishing websites for a living). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, have since added a large number of useful references so that the article meets WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Aw, did this poor AfD get neglected last time? I'll give it some much needed attention! I've just checked out the above websites with Google translate. Here is what I see (translated from Greek):

a brief paragraph bio.
a music page that doesn't qualify as an independent source.
this article is essentially about his father, not Nikos. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED.
extremely brief bio on what he plays and his "age 3" claim to fame.
Aaaaand thanks to Epeefleche, the PDF file from the publishing media group is not independent and is therefore not a suitable, third-party reference.

Sorry, but these references just won't cut it for notability standards.. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added three more references. Another concert in Athens. Another concert in Washington. Another and separate appearance on the national and international Greek television channel ERT. This article meets WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it sounds like you feel that the article that is mostly about his father is notable, and since I do not find Wikipedia to have an independent article on the father, the content can comfortably reside within this article. Keep it, refactor it. -- Avanu (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how any of this argument amounts to a keep for this article. Could you please explain? Stuff about his dad isn't the point of this discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the dad to be notable, then this is the closest thing to an article for him that Wikipedia has. Simple. Keep this and refactor it. -- Avanu (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the father to be notable. Even if I did, that's not a reason to keep the current article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The father is notable because he had a number one hit on the Greek charts in the 1950s and he got in to the top ten several times. The reason to keep the article is that Nikos Tatasopoulos has been in the charts with a large number of famous Greek singers but the only documentation available to prove it is what you find on CDs and the websites of commercial CD vendors (and ofcourse the musician's own website). Nikos Tatasopoulos has played in a number of concerts, some televised internationally, and some as a soloist, some of these have been documented independently. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Jeth. If the father had a wp article, and if there were RS-supported material in this article, one could look to delete this page and move any such RS-supported material to the father's wp article (what we would call a "merge"). But the father does not have a wp article. And IMHO, we don't have the requisite RS material to support notability here. Nor has Avanu indicated/demonstrated RS coverage of the subject of this AfD sufficient to obviate deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'll give you a reason. I was originally just using the reason *you* provided. This guy is a world-traveling bouzouki player. We have reliable evidence of that. How many of those are there? Seriously, unless you have a reason to doubt this, (and there is clear evidence that he travels and is talented and is the son of a talented person) then he's notable just for his uniqueness. Lacking tons of links isn't the standard for deletion of content. I've *never* met one bouzouki player in my life and the only really notable thing I know of regarding bouzouki players is the Monty Python Cheese Shop skit. So unless you can find a lot of evidence that bouzouki in general is commonly covered and Reliably Sourced per your implied standards, we ought to either delete any reference to bouzouki, or just climb off the douche horse and fix the article and let a real expert finish it out later. This is not a BLP concern, and it is written in a fairly neutral style. Unless your day isn't complete without a deletion to mark on the board, get a Greek friend, have some baklava, discuss the bouzouki, and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I like Monty Python and I like that skit. And yes, lacking tons of links (i.e. sources that are available either on the article or accessible otherwise) is a criteria for deletion. After searching for them (which I've done, and I have looked for his name in Greek and English), there's just no saving this article because it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The fact that he plays the bouzouki is not in itself notable. You really need to read WP:ITSA to understand where I am coming from. The article can be written as neutral as possible and still not be notable. Finally, you can do without the name-calling and bizzare claims that we are out to get you or something. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Avanu. We're simply seeking to follow wp notability standards. Simply being a world-traveling musician, without more, is not indicia of notability per wp standards. Similarly, being the son of a person who may be notable does not count at all towards notability, under wp standards. That has already been pointed out above; see Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. While I understand that you !voted keep, your !vote is based on either a misunderstanding of wp standards for notability, or a lack of sensitivity towards them. And yes -- "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is precisely the wp standard, under GNG. We simply don't have that here, despite the energetic efforts by multiple editors to look for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you claim is mostly about the father is actually mostly about Nikos Tatasopoulos. The title of the article is "Nikos Tatasopoulos". The subject of the article is "Nikos Tatasopoulos" it only mentions his father because Nikos is the successor of a bouzouki soloist. The father is also notable because he had a number one hit in the Greek charts and other hits in the Greek charts. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? Are you talking about this article because no, it's not about Nikos. It's about his father, John (ΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ ΤΑΤΑΣΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same article. The article is HERE. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is another reference. This one is 100% independent. This is the press kit for a documentary film release. It shows a photograph with Nikos Tatasopoulos in it on p.18 and he is also credited on p.21. Surely, this is good enough for WP:GNG. I really had to dig up an Internet mine to find this one. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort. But that's not an RS -- it is the same as a press release, which is also not an RS for purposes of notability ... it is an effort to get RSs to report something (which, at the end of the day, there is no evidence that they did). Simlilarly, it is not the "significant coverage" that is required for GNG. So it unfortunately fails on both counts.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already got the significant coverage from the source with the interview and that source is reliable enough despite the identified conflict of interest (it was written by a top flight American journalist). This new source references a documentary film and the information it provides is that a master bouzouki player called Nikos Tatasopoulos is providing music for the documentary film biography of one of the most famous singers in Greece (of all time). It doesn't matter that it is a Press Kit. The fact is that Tatasopoulos' music is in the documentary and he is credited at the end of the documentary. It is a fine reference and contributes to WP:GNG. I think that you are getting picky. This is a musician we are talking about. The vast majority of musicians you only get to hear about when you play their CD. In this case, a large proportion of all the famous Greek singers in Greece have worked with Tatasopoulos and that is archived on all the CDs that have been produced. Has anybody bothered to write an article about it. Yes, one Greek-American journalist has interviewed him. He has also appeared on national television on numerous occasions but the archives are not available on the Internet (except for masses of U-Tube videos). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an independent source, so it is not an RS. And in any event, one article would rarely meet GNG, even if it were an RS, rather than published by the media company that was paid to set up the person's website. Press releases -- especially ones that are not picked up by the RSs to which they are sent -- also fail to count towards notability. GNG is exceedingly clear on both of these points ("'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject.... press releases are not considered independent.").--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press kit for the documentary film is independent of Nikos Tatasopoulos without question. It is an independent source. The fact that he has participated in the making of the documentary by playing the bouzouki is evidenced in the credits of the documentary film. That is a reliable source. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press kits and press releases are certainly not RSs for notability purposes. Please read our rules on reliable sources, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SELFPUBLISH. The fact that he is included in a press kit, of all things, is not evidence at all that RSs thought him worthy enough to be "noticed" by covering him in RS coverage. Our notability guidelines take zero note of press releases and the like -- see WP:SPIP, which states that

"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material ... and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals ... are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.... routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements... is not significant coverage."

--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the documentary film itself which credits this musician. I have also added an article that mentions him in an independent American newspaper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions or credits aren't going to be enough. The subject needs to have significant coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close examination of the policy states that this is only the case if the work of media is notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concert was broadcast internationally via ERT. The recording of the concert was also used for the film documentary. The documentary film itself has been constantly mentioned, and talked about unendingly on Greek television. Isn't international broadcast enough? The documentary film was shown at the 12th Thessaloniki Film Festival and noted on their website (another independent and reliable source). The documentary film has an international concert tour with the important musicians including Tatasopoulos. Moreover, I have added more references to more concerts and to a seminar that Tatasopoulos conducted in New York. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Moreover, he meets more than one criteria in WP:MUSICBIO:

- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. [Not just "My Sweet Canary" documentary film, since he has appeared on national network television shows.]

- Is in an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. [Not just the "My Sweet Canary" concert tour but at a number of nightclubs in Greece and the United States. The clubs in Greece are vastly superior to those in the United States by a large margin.]

- Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. [Not just "My Sweet Canary" but "My Sweet Canary" is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO.] Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I missed this above, but where is the third-party evidence for him performing on national network television shows, him performing in Greek / U.S. clubs? And I'll also contest that the documentary is not especially notable. Has it been the subject of reviews or commentary? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "My Sweet Canary" concert at the 12th Thessaloniki Film Festival (which was sponsored by EPT) was broadcast on EPT (national Greek television, it is the main Greek television channel and is broadcast internationally by satellite and across the Internet). But he has also appeared on other Greek television shows that I cannot find references for. But there are enough references for the "My Sweet Canary" concert. And Rosa Eskenazi is a big deal in Greece and in Israel. The concert orchestra comprised top musicians from Greece, Turkey, and Israel. Then there is the American Ellopia TV concert that I have not added references for because Epeefleche would treat that as a conflict of interest (but it is still a broadcast television concert). [Here is the link for the concert in Thessaloniki. http://tdf.filmfestival.gr/default.aspx?lang=en-US&loc=8&page=865&EventID=64] Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeth and Zjarri here, whose comments are based on the wp criteria. Nipson -- we don't consider a subject notable for wp purposes if the company that creates its website also writes an article about it, or if it is mentioned in a press release or press kit, or in general if it lacks -- as he certainly does, given your extraordinary efforts to find it -- appropriate indicia of significant coverage by independent sources. If a subject's notability were measured by the word's written in an effort to make him notable, he would qualify, but all that your efforts have managed to do is convince me that he completely lacks the requisite significant RS coverage, despite yeoman efforts having been engaged in to find them.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Thessaloniki Film Festival is an independent website and there is no conflict of interest. Second of all, the Thessaloniki Film Festival wrote that webpage and the musician did not. The Thessaloniki Film Festival webpage is both an independent and reliable source. The sponsor of the Film Festival is ERT, who broadcast the concert nationally and internationally. Terrestrially, via satellite and via the Internet. Moreover, this was not just one concert (it was one in an international tour). Moreover, Tatasopoulos has participated in a large number of concerts and in some instances as a soloist. I don't think that you have contributed anything at all with your last paragraph. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and btw the criterium you're debating about is succinct i.e as that single appearance is his only claim to notability the article should be deleted or if there is an appropriate article it could be redirected there.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has made many notable appearances but only one documented appearance is required to meet WP:MUSICBIO. It is documented independently by the Thessaloniki Music Festival on their website. It is not a press kit and there is no conflict of interest. Moreover, the concert was broadcast internationally by EPT which is the main terrestrial television channel in Greece and broadcasts internationally by satellite and on the Internet.

Have added references for two more independent concerts. One concert where he is one of only two musicians plus the singer. Another concert where the lead singer is Katy Garbi which took place in Washington, United States. And another reference for another appearance on the ERT television channel. And a photographic record of a seminar that he gave in New York. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per several of the above comments. Safiel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's JUSTANESSAY. With the opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. The essay is not a Wikipedia policy. I think it is silly -- "per the above comments" is just as good as re-stating in slightly different words the words of prior contributors. Safiel clearly put in thought here -- he originally !voted weak keep, but upon further examination of the above comments, changed his !vote to that of the 4-2 majority here that favors deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It requires no consideration at all to say "as per several of the above comments". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal view. You are entitled to it. Though it seems to be be somewhat belied by the fact that this editor expressed a "week keep" leaning originally, and then -- after your 18 above comments, and those of others -- revised his view to suggest (as most editors here have) that this article should be deleted -- based on the above comments. While I understand that you very much believe that this article should be kept, 4 of the 5 other editors who have opined on this page so far have a different view.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 editors disagree. One editor is WP:JUSTAVOTE without reasoning. One is the nominator. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors have indicated delete -- Jethrobot, Epeefleche, Safiel, and ZjarriRrethues. The editor who you take to task clearly considered matters (see my comments above), and you are just quoting an essay that is an opinion of an editor and not policy. Further, the only editor who agreed w/you on "keeping" this, did so based on a mistaken assumption and with unclear reasoning -- see above. You have been tendentious -- over 20 comments at this AfD -- and I and others have spent a great deal of time trying to respond to you, but the consensus here seems somewhat clear. Adding more non-RS sourcing and COI sourcing does not increase the notability of this article's subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only you and Jethrobot have made any effort to justify a deletion. You are the nominator of the AfD. Zjarrirethues has added nothing other than "succinct". Safiel's comment is WP:JUSTAVOTE and Zjarrirethues' is little more. None of you have considered the new references or the additional work that I have done. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to you. You're just repeating yourself now. I'll sign off (unless you make further mis-statements such as the # of delete !voters), as I feel I am unable to reach you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin. I have more than doubled the number of references on this article and the majority of references have not been discussed above. I request an extension so that this article can be more fully discussed. This musician clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO and the sources are adequate in this regard. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 21 comments already. The sources that you added are, in the consensus view of the commentators, not sufficiently supportive of the notability of the subject. I think you've had ample opportunity for comment, and four of the five editors responding to your comments have not been swayed by them (as conversation developed, one even changed his !vote from supporting you to supporting deletion). I think its time to put down the stick.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have not considered all the references that I have added. I have done a great deal of work to this article since they commented. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having twice as many non-RS refs does not improve the notability of the article. As discussed, your adds do not add to notability. We do not keep an article based on the amount of work put in, but based on the RS refs discovered, which here are insufficient. It is the normal course that articles are worked on during AfDs. As Safiel's !vote indicated, the discussion has crystallized the paucity of non-RS refs, not the opposite way. This sounds as though you simply don't like the fact that 80% of the editors reading your above comments have a view that differs from yours. As I said, we've entertained and responded to your comments; but at some point .... --Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just calling them non-RS does not make them so. 2 editors is only 50 per cent. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong and speedy delete If this singer was a Mongolian yak herder who was famous only in a particular area of Mongolia and had been featured in The Yak Gazette (in lead linotype) would that make it any clearer? Nikos is not nearly sufficiently notable in the English-speaking world (read: you need an electron microscope to pick up English-language evidence he even exists) to merit inclusion in an English encyclopedia. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music) and WP:ARTSPAM. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is not comparable to a Mongolian yak herder. He is an internationally renowned musician who has played in many concerts, who has played as a soloist, who has been televised on more than one television channel, who has taken part in a world concert tour. Nikos Tatasopoulos is an American-born citizen who is particularly well known in the United States and in Greece and who has played internationally. Your comments are completely off-target. You need to adjust the magnification on your electron microscope since there are more than 600 hits on English Google and 296 hits on Greek Google. Moreover, "failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion" (not that this article fails to satisfy the notability guidelines"). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm… Let me do a Google search on myself in just the context of fuel cells (a prior career of mine). One moment… Well, there you go! I get 875 English-language Google hits. And I’m not notable. All you can squeeze out of Nikos is 600 hits?? Forget it. Not even close. Greg L (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He beats you when you combine the Greek Google hits. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete The English-language version of Wikipedia is directed to a general-interest, English-speaking readership. Indeed, Wikipedia:Notability (music) says a musician “may” be notable if it meets any of certain criteria, and amongst those criteria is that the artist Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. But the operative word here is “may” (be notable). Common sense applies at all times on Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) and the totality of the picture as regards Nikos is clear here: he is not in the least bit notable for an English-speaking readership. If this singer was a Mongolian yak herder who was famous only in a particular area of Mongolia and had been featured in The Yak Gazette (set in lead linotype) would that make it any clearer? Nikos is not nearly sufficiently notable in the English-speaking world (read: you need an electron microscope to pick up English-language evidence he even exists) to merit inclusion in an English encyclopedia. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music) and WP:ARTSPAM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Nipsonanomhmata’s argumentative and aggressive style on this page is not advancing his cause. His argument that Nikos is is particularly well known in the United States is not supported by the citations in the current version of the article upon which I formed my opinion. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point your electron microscope in this direction:

He has collaborated with singers and musicians from around the world including Malika Zarra from Morocco. Nikos Tatasopoulos plays bouzouki in the film documentary "My Sweet Canary", and the international concert tour of the film, which is about the life of Rosa Eskenazi. In 2006, he appeared on Greek national television channel ERT1, which is televised internationally, in the programme "Μουσικές αντιθέσεις". On February 10, 2008 he played in a concert in Washington, United States with the singer Katy Garbi. In New York he gave a seminar on "Bouzouki:Style and Technique" (which are all referenced in the article). You have not considered that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So English-speaking readers are all fascinated with Nikos, you say? Let’s cut to the chase about your allegation: How many readers are sufficiently interested in this guy to read this article. Virtually no editing was being done to this article in January of 2010. It got about three hits per day in January; the lowest hit count I have ever stumbled across. Ever. Now I wish this article doesn’t get deleted so I can link to it as an example of a über non-notable article. Even Gumby, a stop-action claymation animation from the 1950s has 300 times more interest than there is for ol’ Nikos. Like I wrote: this isn’t even close. Greg L (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you alleging that he does not meet WP:MUSICBIO? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying the article should be deleted for all the reasons stated above in my 23:21, 6 July 2011 post. The Wikipedia article traffic statistics bear out that the article enjoys record-setting levels of disinterest throughout this entire pale blue dot. Even at modern prices of 8.5¢ per gigabyte for mass storage, this article is a waste of server space. Moreover, not deleting this article would just encourage more spamming of en.Wikipedia. Are you this guy’s mommy or something? Are you getting paid for this article? I don’t get it; this isn’t even close. Three hits a day across the entire planet amply demonstrates that Nikos is currently a bug splat on the windshield of the entertainment world. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to this individual whatsoever. I do however appreciate this individual. I suggest that you take the lens cap off your electron microscope because he easily meets WP:MUSICBIO. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you can find an article that receives only two hits per day and is therefore even less notable than Nikos. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you'll find that the number of hits that the Wikipedia article gets is not in the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Moreover, you'll find that he averaged more than 250 hits per day in the first half of June at http://stats.grok.se/en/201106/Nikos%20Tatasopoulos and the first week of July at http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/Nikos_Tatasopoulos . What are you using to clean the lens on that electron microscope? A lump of coal? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! You best pay attention to what others are writing before putting your foot in your mouth. Note in my above post dated 23:49, 6 July, I wrote Virtually no editing was being done to this article in January of 2010. Do you have any idea why I wrote that? Because you can’t measure readership levels on articles that enjoy near-zilch readership when heavy editing is occurring, such as when you are furiously pounding away on your keyboard on that article and revisiting it to admire it. Look at the current edit history of the article. What do you see there? Oceans of you editing furiously away on the article in June and July. And then you provided in your above post hits for those two months. Either you aren’t paying any attention to the facts, or you don’t care about the facts, or you don’t understand the facts, or you are misleading us. Now let’s look at the edit history of NikosTatasopoulos for April 2011 and earlier. You can see there was no editing on the article in February, March and April of 2011. Here are the readership hits for those months (which can’t discern when you are visiting only to admire the article): Feb-2011, March-2011, and April-2011. The article is of interest to hardly anyone on this planet and the artist is clearly not notable. I suggest you host your own Web site to serve as a shrine to this character; his wonderfulness escapes the rest of us and—judging by Grokstats—is 1% as fascinating as Gumby and is many thousands times less interesting to English-speaking readers than “Economy of Greece” is as of late. Greg L (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been furiously editing this article for one week only. I was not furiously editing the article at the beginning of June which averaged 250 hits per day. Nor do I think that I personally am motivated enough to generate 250 hits per day (on any article). Moreover, you are missing the point altogether. What does the hit rate of a Wikipedia article have to do with the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO? Hit rate means nothing. Moreover, I think you'll find that the hit rate of most articles increases when they are put up for AfD as more editors than usual take a peek at the article whether or not they comment in the AfD. And this article has been put up for AfD twice in a month. If you are going to comment on an article you should do so objectively and stick to the criteria that matters. Instead of inventing criteria that have no bearing whatsoever. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I already addressed your link—and even that specific section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) in my first post. But to entertain you and address that section by your sub-link alias (WP:MUSICBIO) again, here’s what this article has to do with WP:MUSICBIO: The English-language version of Wikipedia is directed to a general-interest, English-speaking readership. Indeed, WP:MUSICBIO says a musician “may” be notable if it meets certain criteria. But the operative word here is “may” (be notable); all that stuff are suggestions of criteria upon which one can look towards for some evidence of notability.

Common sense applies at all times on Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) and the totality of the picture as regards Nikos is clear here: he is not in the least bit notable for an English-speaking readership. How do we know this? As hard as you’ve worked on the article despite the challenges of two AfDs, the current version of the article with all those Greek-language citations just drive home the fact that he is not the least bit notable amongst an English-language readership. It’s all Greek-Greek-Greek down there. And on the subject of “Greek”…

Do tell, is there even a Greek language Wikipedia article on this guy? Entering Νίκος Τατασόπουλος into the Hellenic Wikipedia produces this “Did you mean” search result (English translation). If there is such an article, that’s where this article belongs. ~~If there isn’t, that’s where this article belongs~~. If there isn’t an article on this guy in the Greek-language version, he doesn’t belong in any language-version of Wikipedia.

Importantly too here, the Grokstats hit rates for Feb-2011, March-2011, and April-2011 prove that the world-wide, English-language interest in this character is zilch. I dare say that the internal Wikipedia links pointing to that article probably generate the majority of the three or four hits per day the article is seeing.

How many ways are there to demonstrate that this is probably the least notable English-language subject one could imagine? I thought Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house had set the record for most trivial article.

To not heed common sense here would be to cave to the following specious arguments (from Wikipedia:Wikilawyering):

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

That’s my position; we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I wish you luck and happy editing with your other articles. Greg L (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another excuse to side-track the argument. Still harping on about how many hits the article gets when it is not a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Introducing a new argument about the lack of English language citations. Allow me to enlighten you as to how many English language citations there are for this article (the scientific way):

Current (as at 7th July 2011 at 3:45pm EST).

References (in actual order):

1. Greek 2. English 3. Greek 4. English 5. English 6. Greek 7. Greek 8. English 9. English 10. Greek 11. English 12. Greek 13. English 14. English 15. English 16. Greek

External links

1. English 2. English 3. Hebrew

9 out of 16 references are in the English language (that’s 56.25%)
7 out of 16 references are in the Greek language (that’s 43.75%).

When including the external links:

11 out of 19 references are in the English language (that’s 57.89%)
7 out of 19 references are in the Greek language (that’s 36.84%)
1 out of 19 references are in the Hebrew language (that’s 5.26%).

No surprise there since the musician is an American-born citizen. The stats say "English-English-Greek" (approximately) and not "Greek-Greek-Greek". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nip -- Five of the six editors who have responded to your comments have !voted delete. At some point, you might want to consider the community view on the notability of this subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always with the wise-guy commentary. Greg L is completely out of his depth. He can't even tell what criteria are required for a musician and is inventing his own. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Epeefleche (aka “wiseguy”). Since there are more English-language Google hits on me than this bouzouki-playing Nikos dude (875 to 600), will you do a Wikipedia article on me? I’m more apparently more notable than he is. But I’m too bashful to write my own and I know you’ll do me justice. You can start with my contributions to a new way to make fuel cells and can then touch upon my exploits setting off big-ass oxy-acetylene balloon bombs as July 4th noise makers. I was telling the story in a machine shop of this monster balloon I set off (actually a beach ball) and some machinist dude remembered it even though it happened eight years prior. He lived twelve blocks away from ground zero (a six-foot diameter blast zone scrubbed clean down to hard-packed earth). He said “My wife and I were asleep when there was this hellacious explosion and a painting fell off the wall.” I’m apparently legendary. That beats this bouzouki stuff any day.

(Typed with both hands ‘cause neither got blowed off yet) Greg L (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GenerateXY[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. I can find no reliable sources to support this product's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete this, delete Tankogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too. Two related products, with articles by the same creator and no notable footprint for either. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Tankogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as they're two related products with the same lack of evident notability.

If anyone has a problem with a multiple AfD like this, just split it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - OR, not notable, self promotion. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A move away from "Chinese" can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homophonic puns in Chinese[edit]

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

This reads as pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it's possible that a decent article could be created here eventually, but none of the content is suitable as it stands. Indeed, 'Chinese' is not a language; Cantonese and Mandarin (amongst others) are. →ROUX ₪ 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the decision to move this too: list of China-related deletion discussions The content should be closely reviewed by those with experience in the usage of such puns within the language and culture of the Chinese to avoid possible embarrassments for the Wiki... --User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the point, primarily in the advertisement section which is clearly inappropriate and which I've just removed. It is not a synthesis of information from other articles, most of the target content is currently non-existent on wikipedia, but many of the examples in the article are because of the ease with which they can be found. Even so, how are articles like "List of Argentinians/Danes..." anything more than synthesizing information from other articles? Furthermore, there is nothing about it which advances a position, since the information can be immediately inferred from the material itself to any individual competent in the language. Stating that "pear" and "pair" are pronounced the same is as original as 2+2=4, and maybe an individual came to the conclusion independently, but the conclusion itself is a necessary result of systemic constraints.
I don't see how mentioning how "'Chinese' is not a language" is in any way appropriate. The article clearly outlines the scope as intending to encompass both Standard Mandarin and other Sinitic varieties and in no place claims that Chinese is a language as "Chinese" can be an all-encompassing term. Using "in Chinese" in the title is no different than the articles The Internationale in Chinese or Chinese exclamative particles which despite superficial phonetic differences clearly point to something universal among them. Every variety of Chinese has these particles, and anyone could learn how to sing the Internationale in their dialect and indeed before a standard form was chosen many people likely did. All Chinese varieties are highly analytic and homophones abound even in the more phonetically rich Middle Chinese pronunciations of many words whose modern reflexes generally carry on as homophones as well. Homophony and its consequences are universal linguistic features among Chinese varieties that merits an article unto itself and falls within the scope of wikipedia and meets its guidelines. Not only for humor, but it also leads to some serious confusion among its speakers. It can even focus on homophony in regional Mandarin, for example speakers who pronounce the syllables "lei" and "nei" as only "lei" or only "nei" and do not possess the distinction, which may lead to puns or confusion among these speakers or others. Or for example, there's a clothing chain called 衫国演义 "Romance of the Shirt Kingdom" which sounds like 三国演义 or the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" in many southerners' regional Mandarin. There may also be a section on Japanese names with unfortunate Mandarin pronunciations as well. These are phenomena which are painfully obvious to most Chinese and encountered on a daily basis. They form an integral part of Chinese linguistic culture. Wikipedia exists precisely to provide a medium for documenting phenomena like this which may have few other appropriate outlets. There are difficulties in proving the speakers' perceptions of puns since there are few well-known works on the matter but a similar difficulty holds true for Mandarin Chinese profanity as well English language phenomena such as Elephant jokes yet these articles appear perfectly permissible and have been there for a while.
I do not believe this article merits deletion. I acknowledge some current content issues, but its the inappropriate content which needs deletion not the article. Furthermore, this article was created with the stated purpose of being a seed for later development and was never intended to be a good article in the first place. What the article needs is more careful attention and more meaningful contributions. Given the variety of other analogous articles on wikipedia, it should in principle be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.s.ronis (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - I strongly disagree with deleting this article. The examples given are real, although just a very small selection of common puns. The article is also informative, it should eventually be expanded. The political part should probably be toned down, since we normally avoid to use the f*** word in any language unless it is totally necessary to understand the subject, which is not the case here.
But nobody will like to be working on this article as long as it is tagged for deletion. I suggest to remove the tag in one week if the 'keeps' are still in the majority.
Also, of course, Chinese is a language, namely a written language (Chinese characters). Mandarin and Cantonese are spoken languages and their speakers use Chinese language for writing. Shenhemu (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move - article can be improved to meet standards. The topic itself is a notable one and deserves to be expanded. Homophones and near homophones are a very important part of Mandarin Chinese. I do however, find the "Chinese" in the title slightly problematic. The other chinese languages are similar in their prominence of homophony but the article seems to actually be about Mandarin and should be labeled as such. The pronunciation for other chinese languages would be different, and since homophony is about pronunciation, the article should go ahead and be titled as being about Mandarin Chinese. The specific claims of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH do not apply here since no original argument is being made. The most general ideas in the article are all either cited or are common knowledge to anyone familiar with the language. For the latter, sources can be found and added, the article is new. The specific ideas in the article are cited and the article does not attempt to form a new conclusion based on those ideas. It states other widely held ideas which connect them and cites the sources, though not all. The article can and will be improve in the near future. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes whose Native American names translate to Big Water[edit]

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

After creating this list, I had second thoughts and speedied it. BenMacDui asked me to reconsider. I'm still about 70% in favor of deletion, as it seems a bit contrived, but I thought I'd bring it here for more opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why can't this snippet of (not yet verified) information just be put onto the articles themselves? This list isn't encyclopaedic. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely a list, no valid navigational function, more akin to a couple of factoids. Kudos for pulling the plug on your own piece. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic.--141.152.79.93 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be at wiktionary, if it were to exist? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My suggestion (originally made to the nominator) was that this article become a dab or more clearly identified as a set index article. This would only make sense if there were a few more "big waters" - and although I have no knowledge of this at all there may well be. The idea is still a bit contrived I agree, but see for example Eilean Fraoch and its associated List of islands called Linga - there are numerous Scottish islands called by names that in English mean "heather isle" that are so listed. My thought was that someone with an interest in lacustrine geography or Native American languages might find the idea helpful, but no matter if not. Ben MacDui 09:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The thing is, your examples are places with the same name. My list is of those with the same meaning. That's why it wouldn't be appropriate for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if in current form, but if there were some interesting article to be made about why these lakes were called big water (i.e. if it's something unique about native american languages/culture) then I would vote keep in that hypothetical alternative form Egg Centric 18:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round Table of America[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional group. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the article, a fictional superhero team, does not meet the general notability guideline and the article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work. None of the references provided in the article shows significance or reception for the fictional team and the two publishers appear to be fansites or at least do not meet the criteria of reliable sources. A quick search engine test shows a couple sources that appear to be reliable but none of them address the fictional team in detail (they are reviews of a single one-shot, not the actual team) or give analytic or evaluative claims about the team to presume that it has real-world relevance to deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:PLOT. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star CJ Alive[edit]

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

Doesn't really justify notability - has no references - much of it reads like an advert. Reichsfürst (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No refs, no indication of notability beyond WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and significant. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. I didn't see any good sources on both Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) locations[edit]

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

Contested prod. Consists entirely of plot details and fictional history; contains no assertion that the planets are notable outside of the series or franchise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a list. The various entries in the list are certainly notable - see here, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author Kevin Grazier was science advisor and intimately involved with BSG's production, so he's not really evidence of notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That means that he is an expert on the topic and so the source is a good one for our purposes. The publishers were John Wiley and Sons - a highly reputable publisher, not a vanity press, and so the publication is excellent evidence of notability. Warden (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean he's not a source, it means he cannot be used as evidence of notability (he's not secondary). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the primary sources in this case are the TV series, scripts and novelisations. This work is a secondary source because it analyses and studies the work rather than being part of it. Warden (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by secondary--I meant that he's not independent of the subject, thus he can't be used to satisfy notability since he's primarily involved in the subject itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least partially independent, because the other author (Patrick Di Justo) is independent of the work commented on. So this can partially support notability, considering the motivations for the independence clause. Also this is a secondary source, independence is stronger than being secondary. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the items on this list were from articles that were deleted because they couldn't be written "out of universe". Are we declaring war on all fiction? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why should they exist? They are not required for coverage of the notable aspects of the universe, and are not notable themselves. Writing things "out of universe" is a requirement of fictional coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two reasons:

1) I can't speak for the populace at large, but when I don't know something... I Google it. Invariably, Wikipedia is among the first 10 sites that comes up with data on just about anything. Heck, this list comes up as #5 with a search of "Joe's Bar BSG". So... unless Wikipedia is going to just delete all fiction articles because they lack real world aspects, this must stay. And they are legion, from List of Doctor Who planets to List of Digimon. I imagine (though I have not looked) that if we were to start purging lists list this we'd be in the four to five digit range in terms of numbers of articles.

2) It's standard practice to take things that may not deserve their own articles and combine them into lists so they can at least be looked up. This happens a LOT with SF articles, and has been noted here Talk:List of Star Wars characters as well. Note that there are citations for many of the items on the list as well. I would also point out that this debate has happened before (and will happen again), but I'll cite the consenus of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Star_Wars_creatures_(2nd_nomination): Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Your arguments boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "it's useful", neither of which are based in any type of Wikipedia guideline or policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Er, not exactly: in 2) I have shown there is a consensus to not delete lists like this one (the Star Wars one (and many other pages if we want to go looking)). As for policy, there is Wikipedia:DEL#Merging: Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. That's pretty much what this list is, as there have been articles merged into it in the past such as Talk:New Caprica. The list ALSO contains links to articles which have been deemed notable, such as Kobol. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent topic is notable. LENGTH prevents covering these in the main article, so this is a legitimate WP:SS breakout that derives its notability from the main topic. No objection to appropriate cleanup, but there are plenty of other, similar locations articles for notable TV shows that have lasted into multiple seasons, e.g. Locations in Veronica Mars. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as Jclemens. --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to consider this article for deletion on the basis that it fictional, than there is a mountain of other articles that also need to be considered for deletion.--Uriel ramirez (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and legitimate encyclopedic subject. The notability of the topic of locations in BSG comes partly from the fact that finding the location of Earth is a central plot theme, as acknowledged by various sources such as Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy By Josef Steiff, with all commentaries that follow. The subject of location in more abstract terms is also discussed: "there is no central location for narrative coherence", as well as how the fleet is forced to move from planet to planet in order to survive. This is also discussed in Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel by Roz Kaveney, Jennifer Stoy as well as the 'companion' books such as Finding Battlestar Galactica: An Unauthorized Guide by Lynnette R. Porter, David Lavery, Hillary Robson. Most of the specific entries are discussed there, and not just in plot terms, also as part of the commentaries on the spiritual aspect of the series, in particular the quest for Earth, and as part of the survival theme. New Caprica has been discussed by several sources, particularly on the occupation theme, in Battlestar Galactica and philosophy: knowledge here begins out there, an entire essay is on this subject (p 114-); the parallel with the Iraq war has also been heavily discussed, such as in BG: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel (p 144-) and in various other sources, this is covered in the main article here. This not only shows that the subject as a topic is notable but that it is a legitimate encyclopedic subject due to its independently verified significance in a notable work of fiction and beyond that. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Abby Johnson (activist)[edit]

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

Non-notable author of non-notable book. Nothing to suggest any of her assertions are true. PhGustaf (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage in news sources including the Washington Times, ABC and FOX news, and the Telegraph in the UK. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is not about her assertions. The article is about her. She seems to gain significant press coverage (even if her assertions were not true, they were notably discussed in media), i.e., she is notable in real world, hence sufficiently notable for wikipedia to provide a balanced view amid the polarized controversy. Loggerjack (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binksternet. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. She was notable before her book and is notable without it. Plenty of mainstream and notable coverage. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons related here. Rationale given in the nom for deletion doesn't hold water. Brain Rodeo (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in niche papers like the Wash. Times, CNA, etc. wouldn't cut it, but there's Salon, ABC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than ample coverage in reliable sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close per WP:SNOW: I've never seen so many pro-lifers and pro-choicers in agreement. I gotta bookmark this for posterity. We should get Haymaker in on this---does anyone mind if I canvass him? – Lionel ^(talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throw those sitting on the fence in as well :-) Loggerjack (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If people would learn how to footnote better, stating the exact source of the green links in the footnote section, this might never have been challenged. Clearly over the bar. Next... Carrite (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. I certainly made a bad guess about consensus here. If an admin wants to close it as snow, fine with me. PhGustaf (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Haymaker!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Piers Morgan Tonight guests[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:Listcruft. Proposed deletion contested by an anonymous editor. At Talk:Piers Morgan Tonight there is a brief discussion of splitting the listcruft to a separate article, and it's noted that there is a List of The Daily Show guests. There is indeed a whole category: Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. I would argue for deletion of all of those too, but that's a separate matter. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a particularly useful list. Piers Morgan Tonight is a general-interest talk show, and if it lasts long enough, one can expect that pretty much every prominent person (politicians, actors, journalists, etc.), at least those who are notable in the United States, will appear on the show at some point (with the possible exception of Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow, who host talk shows on other networks in the same time slot). This list has no sources and is not organized in any way except by category (not even alphabetically within the categories). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination) for an example of a similar list which was deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Metropolitan. It's listcruft. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Piers Morgan Tonight is a well known show, and if a person is important enough to be on the show, they are most likely going to be well known already. There is no reason to devote a LIST to just those who have appeared on the show. Tootalldk (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011

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

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

The result was Article withdrawn by creator. WWGB (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest 100 Australian Albums Of All Time[edit]

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

Delete − This was a seconded PROD that was contested by the article creator. The article is about a future event, it cosists of a list of 100 things where only 60 are known. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a directory. It's too soon to know if the subject of this article meets our notability criteria… it's even too soon to be able to complete the list! — Fly by Night (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that this radio poll is notable. The only source that has been provided at all is the radio station's own site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going by the WP:CBALL rule and solely that rule, I think it should be removed and then created a closer date. There are also no sources whatsoever so I'm unsure of it's total notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grim Littlez (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable list of unreliable trivia, perhaps it should be called Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time as voted by a few listeners to a particular radio station. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of of a notable series - Triple J Hottest 100 - with more than "a few listeners" voting. And calls of WP:CBALL are absurd - do we delete 2011 AFL season too, after all it has future fixtures listed, just like this has future positions listed. It will be filled in as the results are announced, and I'd put money on more reliable, independent sources will be found when the #1 album is released. If that doesn't happen, then maybe delete, but to do so now is very premature. And I've added an independent reference from a major Australian newspaper to show that it isn't just an inhouse/single radio station thing. The "hottest 100" part of the name, as opposed to "The best 100" indicates that it is part of the notable series and not just a non-notable list by a magazine/radio station/newspaper/TV station, so WWGB's sarcastic renaming isn't required. The-Pope (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Userfy until complete and then consider if the list is then covered by other institutions other than triple j before moving back into mainspace. I have some sympathy for the list and would like to see it included - similar lists from the US and UK seem to be considered notable - but this is a touch premature, I think. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time to make clear it is part of a series (and determined by listeners to a particular station). WWGB (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted per sole author's request (db-g7), userfied at User:Tyler j1992/Sandbox (talk). – Athaenara ✉ 07:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexhat Pustina[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability (people) I can find very little on this poet. Article creator appears to have conflict of interest with the subject. Unexplained PROD removal by article creator. Safiel (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even Albanian scholars give him only trivial mentions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC). (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No notability demonstrated.--Uriel ramirez (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masroor International Cricket Tournament[edit]

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

PROD has previously been contested. Tournament is a non-notable cricket tournament. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Delete Not notable. The only sources given are YouTube, a press release, two pages on blogspot (the blog in question glorifies itself under the title "Ahmadiyya Times" and tries to look like a newspaper, but it is just a blogspot account), and a page promoting Masroor International Cricket Tournament on the web site of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association of the United Kingdom. No coverage at all in reliable third party sources. The article was clearly written as promotion, and although it has been toned down somewhat, it has done nothing to show notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Allegation that it is not notable

The wining of Canada in the 3rd tournament is also published on the offical website of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.[1] The videos are on Youtube have a Standarad Youtube license. You have said that there is no media coverage, here are proofs of media coverage

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

The match of Germany VS Canada can be seen in these vidoes which are a recording of MTA 1. How can you after this say that there is no media coverage of this tournament. Please tell me that how will you recongize a article is notable?--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

Nobody said "no media coverage". The closest, as far as I can see, is "No coverage at all in reliable third party sources". A few amateur videos posted on YouTube are not reliable third party sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. I recommend that User:Nokhaiz Kaunpal reads WP:RS - and WP:V for that matter. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reading WP:N, WP:CITE and WP:TPG may also help. I moved and slightly refactored Nokhaiz Kaunpal's comment so the references are readable, I hope he won't mind. --Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)[edit]

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

This person, as an individual, doesn't seem to be subject to significant coverage, directly and in detail, by multiple reliable sources ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article lacks independent sources and there's no indication he's a notable author. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for sources failed to clearly or reliably demonstrate notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources to support notability claims. Astudent0 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'll admit I'm not sure how notable he is. He seems to be well thought of in his field, but finding reliable sources was a problem. The best I could find were two mentions in the Journal of Western Martial Art [6][7], which I think is a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party reliable sources to support any notability, fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanization (band)[edit]

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

COI and NPOV issues aside, band does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 11:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the AFD tag was removed from the page. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate it is notable; the only sources present appear to be from the band itself. I also didn't get any hits on Google from third-party sources. It is also quite suspicious that the AFD tag was removed by the article's creator.Indynchild (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promoting original reasearch for a non notable band. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find evidence that they meet WP:BAND. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR Wizzzz Entertainment[edit]

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

Despite the apparent claims to significance, I can't find anything online to show notability. The one independent reference (variety.com) doesn't even mention the company. There may, of course, be print-only reliable third-party sources that cover the company, but I think this unlikely considering its nature and recent founding. —SMALL JIM 11:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't find any good sources on both Google or Yahoo, except for the ones that have already been given on the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No meaningful refs per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) found. Shearonink (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was both articles speedily deleted: Schizopop under CSD G7 (author blanked the page) and SchizoPoP Manifesto under CSD G11(unambiguous advertising or promotion). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schizopop[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, highly WP:PROMO wording. Proposed deletion reverted without edit summary by the article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons. Note that in this edit summary the article's creator notes that the article is about his own work. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:59, 30 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RuralE.Evolution European Project[edit]

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

Technical nomination. This article was PRODed by Crusio. The reason for PROD was: "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." I think that the deletion needs more broader discussion. Beagel (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many European projects that exist for a few years and then disappear again. No evidence whatsoever that this meets WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Yet another EU research project. What all of these spam articles share is an impenetrable, rosy but vague style that always teeters on the brink of patent nonsense. This one took a step in the wrong direction: RuralE-Evolution ’s goal would be that the designed methodology could be transferred and used as a guideline for other European agro-energy districts, which were interested in setting up collaboration projects among public and private sector.
These objectives should be reached by :
A data collection and analysis on existing PPPs models and schemes in the participating countries and globally, and a framework for the application of the PPP scheme to agro-energy districts.
The application of the provisional methodology to target areas and a drawing of 5 feasibility studies for pilot PPPs on agro-energy districts.
A validation and dissemination of the final methodology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 30 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 with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salfia Muslim Institute[edit]

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

School is not notable. I did a Google search and most of the 45 results were social media pages, blogs and listings in directories. Additionally, no other page on Wikipedia links to this article. Nik thestoned 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I remember correctly, high schools are inherently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice they weren't covered by any speedy deletion criteria related to notability, but the list at the top of this would suggest there is some notability to be established for inclusion. Cheers, Nik thestoned 09:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I would love to apply that guideline more stringently, but I believe current consensus is that any school above the middle-school level is inherently notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, any idea where I can find where this consensus was reached? Would lke to see the rationale. Thanks =) Nik thestoned 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea - I'm going based on previous AfDs for high schools. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools is relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the claims in the article are verified by this reliable source from Greater Kashmir. I am in the process of sourcing the article. For background as to why high schools are considered notable see the essay WP:NHS. Indian schools have a poor Internet presence so we should avoid systemic bias by awaiting a search for local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as per WP:NHS, thanks, had not seen this >.< Nik thestoned 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, non-existent file, files should be in WP:FfD. Non-admin closure. Quasi human | Talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socialdemokraterna.svg[edit]

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

They wanted to delete my logo for copyright violation, this logo is a copyright violation Kids4Fun/TALK 09:15, 30 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrawonga, Queensland[edit]

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

Per WP:N; was previously prodded with the rationale "Doesn't exist as a place name, much less as a suburb, though it is a street in Castle Hill and is an irredeemable stub (see http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ )" The central claim of the article is false - it is not a suburb of Townsville, affluent or otherwise. There is a development name of Yarrawonga *Point* but this fails WP:NOT and would merit a line at best in Castle Hill, Queensland. Checking authoritative sources (the above, also [8]) demonstrates that the only Yarrawonga in Queensland is a bore (waterhole) somewhere near Charleville [9], and an administrative parish which surrounds it, both of which are unpopulated and are not themselves notable. Orderinchaos 08:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that there is no legal/geographic position on the existence of this location. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Australia place name search does not have it, nor is it on the Template:Suburbs of Townsville -- Paul foord (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems that this is an unintentional hoax. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Old Harry's Game. Courcelles 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satan (Old Harry's Game)[edit]

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

Procedural, more than a dislike of the article. This has twice now been turned to a redirect [10] [11] by TreasuryTag, once with the summary 'So many thing wrong' and the second reversion being because 'taking it to AfD would be disruptive'. I don't hold with this - I've always seen undiscussed redirection as being 'deletion by the back-door', thus a bad thing for its secrecy, not because conversion to a redirect is necessarily wrong. As I evidently can't stop the redirector from doing so, I'm bringing it to the public forum of AfD as the best available option. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect with merge This article is on the major character of a notable and already-articled comedy, by a well-known writer and comedian. It is unreferenced, full of plot, and it would be hard to reference the content here, other than to find generalist references to the series. I thus find it difficult to justify it by strict policy terms. if I ruled Hades OTOH, we'd keep it.
That said, this is an explanation of the main character of a show that has stretched over several series. If it were published by Marvel, we'd have disambig debates to make it the primary topic at Satan. The content warrants preservation, as it is the main dramatic point of a clearly notable show. (I would note that the previous silent redirection did none of this, nor was it likely to encourage it in the future). Also, as I recall, the one time I've seen critical discussion of the show's internals (and a suitable ref for saving this - probably in The Guardian newspaper) it was in relation to the character being too central in the first series. The philosphy professor was introduced as a foil to this criticism.
No WP:BEFORE seems to have taken place here, certainly no attempt to save by editing rather than deleting (sorry, redirecting - they're totally different). If anyone feels it can be saved in that way, then please do so.
In strict policy though, I can't put up a strong case for this as an independent article. The content should be kept though (with editing, no doubt) and the redirect is reasonable to link Old Harry's Game from within the Satan clade of our structure. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this nomination because the nominator does not want the article deleted (SK1) ~~and because they only made an issue out of this due to an entirely separate editing dispute making their participation more or less disruptive (SK2)~~. Redirect the article, which, as it stands, is almost painfully badly-written, takes an entirely in-universe perspective and is about a character with no independent notability. And trout the nominator. ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 09:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you, despite our recent history, that this has nothing to do with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather odd, then, that you first made a big thing of this Satan business two minutes after leaving me an abusive message on my talkpage. But since you say it was just a coincidence, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and strike that portion of my comment above. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 10:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's indeed an odd coincidence that we have some shared interest in Andy Hamilton's work. However (for once) that's all it is. I can assure you that I just don't do that sort of thing - If I think you've made a bad edit that turns your talk page into an attack on another editor, I'll tell you about it right there and then. Nor was my message 'abusive', nor have other editors at WP:AN considered it so - even after your friendly mafioso-accented admin made me an offer I couldn't refuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirection is that years of AfD derailing by the project's most rabid fiction inclusionists have led to it being a catch-22: you can't redirect an article without someone screaming "if you hate the article so much take it to AfD", and you can't AfD it without someone (often the same someone) screaming "AfD is not for redirection". This is plainly not a subject that we are warranted having a separate article on, and in a sane world (call it, say, 2007) it'd just have been deleted and then posthumously recreated as a redirect. That's what should happen here, and the redirect protected for good measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the whole "AfD is not for redirection" viewpoint. AfD clearly is - just look at what it's used for so regularly.

I'm happy enough with redirection here - I just can't see that this article can be dragged up to WP:RS / WP:N on the issue of the character specifically. Much as I appreciate Andy Hamilton's work, it's not Shylock or Othello and there aren't GCSE passnotes published on Scumspawn.

My point is, that this shouldn't be a quiet undiscussed redirection, or one that abandons the current content. Work on articles such as this shouldn't be discarded so quietly and carelessly. I would very much hope that someone (where are ARS when there's a real need for them?) can do the legwork to turn this into a valuable section within the main article on the series. It is an interesting character, it is the core of the series. The risk (reducto ad absurdam, but that's how this place works) is that another editor who's probably never heard it can then tag the main article for deletion on the grounds of lacking content or character explanation.

The criticism of it being much too in-universe is a real one, but that's an editing job, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree that AfD isn't for redirection if you want, but WP:SK does seem rather clear on the matter. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 10:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but paste the text into the other article if you like. No one is going to look up "Satan (Old Harry's Game)". The info is all about the show. One article on that should be enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...although copying the text would involve combing it for WP:UNDUE, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:INUNIVERSE violations, and I suspect that such an analysis would reduce it to an infinitesimally small number of bytes. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 12:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like some in universe stuff is okay in an article on a show. At least the show itself is clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like that to me... ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad there is not WP:GETREAL. Look at any article on a movie or TV show, or for that matter a novel. Much of it is "in-universe" plot summary. That serves the readers and seems to be what most Wikipedians want. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT It's just copywriting, no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is actually that there's not a terrible amount of out-of-universe material one could say about Hamilton's Satan. If it had been covered in reliable sources, about production, characterisation etc., then there'd be no need to delete/redirect the article in the first place. ╟─Treasury Tag►Odelsting─╢ 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The characterisation of Satan, and Hamilton's introduction of modern management themes, is interesting - that's probably one reason why we both listen to it. You're right that there's a lack of referenceable comment on this (AFAIK, I haven't searched) - Has anyone compared it seriously to the obvious target, Screwtape? None of this though is an in-universe problem. That's still just copywriting. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I think this is one of the best modern fictional characters, and I'm actually surprised that there are so few commentators commentating on it (yes, I've looked!) – but it therefore is a bit of an in-universe problem: the only verifiable comments we can make are extended plot summaries, which go against several bits of the MoS. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 08:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is articles for deletion and is emphatically not for bickering about the use of ordinary editing tools. Neither the nominator nor his antagonist seems to have made any effort to discuss the matter at the article's talk - they haven't even created a talk page. Please see WP:DR for the resolution of ordinary editing disputes. Warden (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The opinion I expressed, not a "vote," was based on the potential notability of the character independent of the show. It had nothing to do with the actions or inactions of other editors. So again, delete because it seems like the character is the show and the article is not useful to readers, for whom WP is supposed to exist. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the content of the article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. A quick search engine test does not show evidence that reliable reliable third-party sources address the fictional character in detail to presume that it is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. There is nothing salvageable from the article as nothing is referenced and the content appears to rely on original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (book)[edit]

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

Article does not meet the general notability guidelines and fails WP:BOOK. I say Delete cera don 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of significance, no significant coverage per WP:GNG, fails WP:NBOOK. Quasi human | Talk 11:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasihuman. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Per WP:NPLACES fulfilled by Phil Bridger. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardarpara,atwari,bangladesh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Bangladesh village with no third-party references and no claims of notability. The article reads like a novel in some places:

From dawn to sun set you can see villagers to find their way of income through business,trading,cultivating and firming lands.

In any case, fails to meet criteria under WP:NPLACE and more generally at WP:V as I cannot verify this place exists. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article doesn't have any reliable sources and I'm having difficulty finding any. Also, I'm not convinced that we don't need some kind of DAB page at Sardarpara. Article is ambiguous in its wording over whether the Sardarpara it is talking about is in Atwari upzila or just up the road from the boundary, which makes looking for sources difficult. The article says "Sardarpara Mosque is the oldest ,historical and tourist place". There is a "Sardarpara Jami Mosque" listed on this government website. However, it appears to be in the wrong upazila (although Kurigram District is not a million miles off Atwari Upazila). This Sardar para appears to be in the wrong upazila and so is this one. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our usual practice with verifiable villages. Sardarpara is in Atwari upizala on the border with India[12] and has a high school.[13] Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good find. I'll see if I can't get this one speedily kept. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vettaikaranpudur[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, please feel free to Trout this user. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Town in an Indian District. Article is a long and plodding travel guide with one deadlink of a reference. After searching for notability in the news and on the web (removing facebook and wikipedia as search terms), I came up with a lot of maps and addresses of local businesses. Also, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I've never seen an article of a town with over 17,000 population up for AfD before. Per long standing convention, population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. Just by looks this appears to be a major town. [14] WP:NOTTRAVEL is about including content on "every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.," not simply having an article about a town/city. If there is excessive tourist detail, that's a matter of article editing and improvement, not article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't know there was a different standard for populaces (I was just following WP:GNG), and I have just read through the policy. I will withdraw my nomination and close this discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:01, 30 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. Mkativerata (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Of The Mutants[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Album by a local Minnesotan Band in 1985. There are some mentions of the album based off of a controversy with Tipper Gore and the P.M.R.C here, here and here, but I wanted to get some consensus on whether this constitutes notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This EP hasn't hit any chart singles. Minima © (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hasn't charted. Not enough third-party sources.
—Michael Jester (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn so I can get my eyes checked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google's hoaxes[edit]

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

Fancruft, trivia, no sources besides from Google itself. Last AFD was in 2006 with WP:ILIKEIT and "too big to merge back" as only arguments. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The idea that Google could do something like this and escape notice is absurd. When one looks for sources, they are immediately apparent, such as this. WP:BEFORE seems not to have been followed and so the nomination is therefore frivolous/vexatious. Warden (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. I did do a source sweep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a word about the nominator. But do please tell us about your source sweep. When I google on the article title, it reports about 17 million hits. If quotation marks are used to search on the precise phrase of the title then it's about 22,000, which is still quite a lot. How is it that you claim to have found nothing? Warden (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first page I looked at had only primary sources or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep If you had taken the time to look over the article itself, you would have found these already cited in the article:

Review by Huff Post
Review by The Register
Review of hoaxes by MacWorld
Review of hoax by CNet
Review of hoaxes by PCWorld
Review by Mashable
Reviews by a French Internet consulting website.

I advise you to check the current references more carefully before you nominate in the future. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 00:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So add the damn things. Don't expect them to add themselves, or I guarantee some other idiot will nominate it again and we'll just start the infinite "keep but source" loop. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've been in the article even before you nominated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Gröger[edit]

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

A low ranking SS soldier accused of misappropriating funds is not my idea of notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting nomination. I was fully prepared to recommend keeping this article, and dug around for awhile on Google Books and Google Scholar, trying to find a reason to do so. There just isn't one there. This person was--as the nominator notes--nothing more than "a low-ranking SS soldier accused of misappropriating funds." If he were still alive, WP:BLP1E would apply. And, in fact, it rather does, since we do not have any confirmation of his death, other than the fact that he would be 107-108 years old, if he is still living. In other words, my recommendation is that this article be deleted. L H M 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, sounds like a minor criminal that really hasn't gotten any interest from reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, delete. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete barring secret Argentinian life-extension technology BLP probably doesn't apply. But he just doesn't seem notable beyond one incident, and BLP:1E is just an extension of WP:NOTNEWS to living persons, which in and of itself is a special case of WP:N for news events. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and as such is likely not notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought he was interesting. His name turns up in several books. I didn't think to cite them all (laborious trips back to the University libray etc. !). — Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bending All The Rules 2011 Soundtrack[edit]

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

Contested prod. Movie soundtrack for which no information is available. In contesting the prod, the creator used promotional wording to add the plot of the movie itself, for which there is no article. No evidence of notability for either the movie or the soundtrack. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song listing featuring forever redlinker artists to a bad dust collecting straight-to-DVD film from 2002 (!) only released last week (!!) to jump on Bradley Cooper's post-Hangover 2 momentum. No need for an article on this or the film, and am I glad this came up for an AfD because I was going to redbox this one this weekend, but now after researching this one and I know it's ten years old I'm staying away. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Collins[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Can't find any reliable source for which Brad COllins is the subject GcSwRhIc (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article probably by subject himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2008 by User:TUF-KAT. I don't know that I ever knew TK's real name, but I seriously doubt he created a vanity article on himself after being around Wikipedia for 5+ years. He knew better than that. nknight (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 18 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) 01:24, 23 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) 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News returns false positives and trivial mentions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails every criterion of WP:BAND and WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 30 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) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gimenez[edit]

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

BLP with no independent third party references in more than a year. no notability claim Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as I've added references from reliable third-party sources, his books are published around the world, and his first novel (at least) made the New York Times best-seller list. - Dravecky (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References establish notability. Article is currently weak, but has a good chance of expanding. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 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) 01:24, 23 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) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references used in the article solidly establish this author's notability per our standards. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources added assert notability of topic. Article can be improved. --EdwardZhao (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Crowe (Arizona)[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN since he is a candidate and not an office holder (actually he's not officially a candidate yet). The election-related references in the article mention him trivially, as a possible candidate, if they mention him at all. Non-election-related references given are about the company, not the individual (ditto for the awards). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is as a potential candidate, but he fails WP:POLITICIAN. His candidacy, if it occurs, should be covered in an article about the 2012 Arizona Senate election, along with all the candidates, in a neutral fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made some changes to this article, most specifically to the sources used. The Wikipedia standards for notability include that the subject be covered by multiple secondary independent sources, and though non-secondary/independent sources are mentioned, the vast body of information in this article comes from secondary verifiable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 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, 23 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) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have further cleaned up the references on this page. There is no original research, and the information is easily obtained from secondary independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lhaviyani Atoll Hospital[edit]

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

hospitals are not inherently notable and must meet WP:ORG. this small 23 bed hospital gets 1 gnews hit and mainly directory listings in google. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It doesn't help that their website is under construction, but apparently there is some coverage about how they were visited by a national group to address concerns about Thalassaemia patients and treatment: 1. There is discussion of the hospital's (among others) involvement in a medical card agreement with Insurance Companies that allow medical service without customers having to pay with cash: Collaboration of Allied Insurance Co. and Northern Health Corporation to Provide Health Card Service. I Jethrobot (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there appears to be a book titled Hospitals In The Maldives: Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Faafu Atoll Hospital, Lhaviyani Atoll Hospital, Thaa Atoll Hospital, which obviously includes potentially important info on the current hospital. However, the book is unavailable and the blurb doesn't include anything helpful. It seems like it would be a good source, if there was any way to get to it. I Jethrobot (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this doesn't appear to be indepth coverage. discussion about non cash payment, is pretty routine in hospitals all around the world. i fail to see indepth coverage of this 23 bed hospital. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That book [[15] is a Wikipedia offprint and cannot be used as a WP:CIRCULAR source. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:58, 23 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, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete per arguments above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable sources. I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo, except for a measley mention here on a government page. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting GNG. DigitalC (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shemayel[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. This is a BLP that has been tagged for need for third party RS refs since 2007. It is also an orphan; zero substantive articles link to it.Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 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, Sandstein 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Sources in English may be hard to find, but there seems to be no shortage of them in Arabic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly non-RS mention in Arabic, but blogs don't satisfy GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arabic sources seem sufficient. They need to be added, of course, but notability is established. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are RSs, that provide substantive treatment of the subject?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among others, this, the Mar. 19 2006 Voice of Palestine interview (the site is down, but the piece is available elsewhere). As well, this is one of those things where I strongly suspect there's more out there that we're not finding because of the different character system (probably the relevant newspapers aren't all on GNews, eithehr). Have you considered asking Arabic speakers for help, for example at WikiProject Arab world? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your most reliable source? That's just Donia's blog. She is the entire editorial board -- blogs don't count towards notability. Feel free to post elsewhere -- we have loads of foreign language AfDs, and usually if there are interested editors watching AfDs, they will see the listing if (as was done here) the AfD is listed at the relevant deletion discussion page. (And, as you see, an Arabic language search was provided above as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not RS, then it's a good thing that it's, as I said, "among others." ;) In particular, there are a couple of other pieces (one story and one interview) that I see reprinted on forums that appear to be RS, though I can't find the originals. Again, having someone who actually speaks the language might be a help. She seems to be much more notable for ending her singing career than for anything she did during it, but notability is notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As that is a non-RS blog, can you indicate what pieces specifically (if any) are RSs? In the absence of significant RS coverage, she is non-notable for RS purposes. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As well, there's no reason to believe this interview is faked, in spite of the quality, and at least one of her albums is on a major label; I don't get any hits for the other label, which suggests a transliteration error rather than a non-existent label. Perhaps someone else could help identify the label. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A person existing -- or having given an interview to a non-notable source -- does not count towards notability. Similarly, having one album on a label (even if the label were a major one) is not sufficient, per wp rules, to meet wp's notability standards. And having an album on a non-notable label does not count towards notability at all. Given that the above is what your !vote is based on, the closing admin should (and presumably will) weigh your !vote appropriately, as at AfDs we are bound to follow wp's notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwyn Joshua[edit]

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

The musical director for just one film, Toofan. Toofan is a 2011 film released in India. Unable to find any other project he may have done. He also goes by Elvin Joshua and there were more Google hits on that name than Ellwyn. Editor and creator of the article uses Ellwyn Joshua as a name. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:40, 23 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) 00:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of Ar Rahman's proteges that he is pumping into different Indian film industries.Pectore^talk 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a protege does not infer nobility. It amounts to inherited notability and this is usually deemed to be a non-starter here. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm only finding one gnews hit and it doesn't look like significant coverage. Even if it is, multiple supersources are required and this is only 1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady's Mission[edit]

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

Unremarkable toy line. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of other reliable sources. I didn't get any 3rd party sources in both Google and Yahoo results. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Rose Picciallo[edit]

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

The article consists of references that are generally not accepted, When I Googled her, I found pretty much nothing. cera don 00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 01:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of established notability. I didn't get any hits on Google or Yahoo except for music download sites and official website. If this article is to stay, it's needs some other third-party sources other than IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 30 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) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DirectSmile[edit]

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

Tone is a little too promotional, and notability is not quite enough. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 24 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) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising: Image personalization allows for the targeted, high efficient and emotional addressing of customers in dialog marketing. The developed DirectSmile technology for image personalization establishes many possibilities for creative designs with variable contents. The different software solutions are scalable for any production volume; furthermore, they are suitable for the output on all digital printing systems as well as for e-mails, MMS or websites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article does match the tone of the company's website, and does seem to be quite like an advertisement, it has potential. Research and restyle are definitely required, but if the claims made are true and the company truly did invent image personalization, then I would say that is quite a notable achievement. If nothing else it could be useful to restructure the page into one about image personalization in general. --GuidingArrow (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third party sources. I didn't find any coverage mentioning them on both Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Singh Mahua[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. He exists, but not enough to meet notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced, passes WP:Politician. —SpacemanSpiff 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by SpacemanSpiff, which show that he was a state legislator and thus eligible for WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of a national legislature are notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Sibrel[edit]

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

Person himself fails to meet all notability standards per present sourcing of article. Delete. Playing a miniscule role in a fringe lunacy does not make you notable. Also COI, article was created in original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart_Sibrel&oldid=4408693 advertising form" by user "moonmovie": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moonmovie was this article injected for propoganda purposes? Expunge all fluffery. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge COI, not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 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, v/r - T P 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - this guy is an asshole, but Wikipedia shouldn't put value judgements on people. I came here from Youtube trying to find more information on this guy, not sure how notoable he is, but seems to be useful to have a balanced article here. Nesnad (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting someone from not being notable by our standards isn't any sort of value judgment on anyone. Its judging whether someone meets our own internal metrics. Merrill Stubing (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - this long Washington Times article about him says among other things: "Mr. Sibrel may be the world’s best-known skeptic of moon landings." David Moore, a well-known (in Ireland) Irish astronomer, says in this The Sunday Times article, that "Sibrel is one of the leading moon-hoax people". There appears to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG, especially considering the Washington Times article. Quasi human | Talk 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the COI claim, the COI editor last edited the article in July 2004, hundreds of edits have been made in the seven years since then and the current article bears no resemblance to the version last edited by User:Moonmovie, [16]. I don't think that the fact that the article was created by a COI has any bearing on this AfD. Quasi human | Talk 10:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Seeley[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Google searches not finding anything significant in WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, Weak Keep. I've added refs to the article as I've found some references, but they are very weak refs. The Dove Awards don't keep old nominations anywhere on their website, only winners. There are web pages with nominations, but none that are really reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The number of views on the Youtube channel of a person does not seem to me a valid criteria of notability for that person (at least regarding the notability necessary for being in an encyclopedia). This article do almost nothing more than listing the songs produced by this artist. So for me it is clearly promotional and it violates WP:SPIP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I also want to point out the fact that the articles which deal with the albums of this artist are almost empty of content (apart from the tracklist) which strengthen the general impression of non notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OysterMaster (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete fails WP:BIO. lacks indepth coverage in independent sources, ie outside Christian media. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 30 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.