Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 9

< 8 June	10 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile17[edit]

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

WP:NN, and a Google search barely comes up with relevant results. There are even more results for a competitor, FunForMobile. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:N. The article is very trivial and unreliable, I suspect the page may also be serving as advertisement. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not reliable.--v/r - T P 03:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bricker[edit]

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

Equipment managers are not inherently notable. Only reference is the team website. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another staff member for a hockey team. Fails WP:GNG. Reso lute 01:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An equipment manager? Seriously? Fails WP:BIO and the GNG going away. Ravenswing 03:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atleast it wasn't the team masseuse like we had to delete a few of a couple years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (may even be speedy) He not even the main equipment guy, that's Derek Settlemyre http://flyers.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=35740 TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to meet any notability criterion. Rlendog (talk) 16:41, 15 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. The argument that this is playing at the highest tier has clearly been debunked and there has been no alternaotive evidenc epresented that this this passed GNG. The deletes therefore have it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cork County Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fails WikiProject Cricket guidelines and also WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Mtking (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mtking (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail on #1. This should be considered within an Irish sporting context. There are many articles on Irish sporting clubs well below the level of 'county'. The article is as yet very undeveloped, but the club has a long history and there is no reason to believe that the article cannot develop, especially given the revival of interest in Irish cricket. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And articles on Irish sporting clubs below the top level should likewise be deleted, if they meet neither the GNG nor any other notability criteria. Do you have any evidence to proffer that this one does? Ravenswing 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge article with Cork (city) and create redirect to relevant section within the article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a merger; all the relevant information is already in the Cork city article. Ravenswing 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a cricket club playing at the highest possible level of club cricket in Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... a statement contradicted by one of the only two sentences this article contains ("Although located within the Munster jurisdiction, the club plays in Division 2 of the Leinster Senior League."), as well as by the only link the article proffered. I dislike asking "Did you read the article you're defending?" but I'm quite puzzled at your assertion. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 02:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The answer to the question is - Mooretwin created it. Mtking (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Rashers, as in the context of Irish sport, this cricket club has a long history and is playing at the highest possible club levels in Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except, of course, according to the article and its only available source, it plays at the second club level. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which, of course, makes it even more notable, the fact that it's the only club playing in the Leinster division that isn't actually from the Leinster province. --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're making a conceptual error here. "Notable" /= "I think it's important." It's whether a subject passes the relevant notability standards of (in this case) WP:NSPORTS, without which an article cannot be sustained. This club doesn't. Failing that, it can qualify under WP:GNG, which holds that a subject must receive coverage in significant detail in multiple, reliable, independent sources. No evidence that this club does has been produced. That an organization is playing in another province, has a history or is one of the few clubs playing in a country that is not well known for a particular sport are irrelevant; none of these are acceptable or valid grounds upon which to retain an article. Since no valid criteria for inclusion has been satisfied, an article on this club cannot be sustained. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 16:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cricket club playing at the most senior level in the Irish leagues. That meets an appropriate level of notability. It's as notable as the Northern Premier League Division One North or Division 2 in the Northern Football League (England) which are at levels 8,9 and 10 with clubs like Hebburn Town F.C. or Whickham F.C.. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Division 2 isn't the senior most level. Division 1 is. As far as why the second highest level in England is notable and is not so in Ireland, you'll have to take that up with the Cricket WikiProject, but I expect their answer would be somewhere along the lines of "Cricket is a major sport in England and a relatively insignificant one in Ireland." The local cricket club in my hometown (in Massachusetts) isn't notable either, for similar reasons. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 01:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club, club cricket in Ireland is not significant, lack of any covering of this club says to me fails WP:GNG. VER Tott 10:36, 14 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawson (author)[edit]

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

Author of two self-published books ( cf. http://isbndb.com/d/publisher/scrambling_news.html ). No other claim to notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly from the same stable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no principled objection to self-published books: I'm the contented purchaser of several. But there are self-published books and self-published books. This stuff sounds as if it would be tremendously newsworthy ... if, that is, there were anything to it. But Google News tells me: Your search - "david lawson" stalking - did not match any documents. And so I infer that there's nothing much to it. Therefore delete. (Incidentally, the earlier AfD on "Gang Stalking Controversy" makes for amusing reading.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. No reliable sources for his biography. Books have not been reviewed in reliable sources. Hasn't come to attention beyond fringe theory community forums. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the subject. 10% of all calls to help lines for stalking victims are complaints about gang stalking. For gang stalking victims the books of David Lawson are the most reliable source about this problem. The following text was published on the internet by lawyer Keith Labella, 64-15 Perry Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378: "On or about October 29, 2008 I called the National Center for Victims of Crime's (NCVC) telephone help-line at 800-394-2255 and spoke to a victim advocate employee. I asked her if she was aware of gang stalking and if she offered any help. During that conversation she told me she was aware of gang stalking, but, that it was not a crime that NCVC provided any referral or help for. She also acknowledged that a large number of calls were regularly coming through the hot-line regarding gang stalking from all around the United States. Upon being asked to estimate the number of gang stalking calls she received, she said ten (10) percent of the average call volume during her shift. She also admitted that NCVC kept "tallies" on the different types of complaints it received over the hotline from victims. [...] She admitted this meant thousands of calls per month!" The problem seems to be that they won't confirm this in writing or in the media because the information that they receive is kept confidential, so it gives the impression of being "not notable" although it is becoming increasingly a big problem in society.--Gastacara (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument for the notability of "gang stalking" is extraordinary; but this doesn't matter as the subject here is not "gang stalking", it is instead David Lawson. Do you have any evidence for the notability of Lawson? -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this person in reliable sources to establish notability. I also looked and failed to find any significant independent coverage or critical reviews of his two books. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this writer. While his research is interesting, he is just not notable according to our guideline. The real problem with a self-published book is that it is original research but is not peer reviewed. If anybody can't verify the sources of his research, then by definition that is not science; it is not knowledge in our society and thus is not even wrong. I note that even fringe theories and theorists must be themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BSR Screen Recorder[edit]

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

~~Spam~~ MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the other similar entries in Comparison of screencasting software page. This one is very similar to the other articles of the programs listed there. Just one example : BB FlashBack Indigo38^(talk) 01:09, 10 June 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 delete. ignoring spas and non-policy based votes we seem to have nothing left except delete argiments based on policy and inadequate sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briokids[edit]

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

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

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

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

The band fails the notability requirements of WP:BAND, and I have been unable to find any sources via Google other than self-published sources, information on forums, and 2 brief reviews of 2 albums by a columnist I could find no other notable information about. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briokids have been involved in underground performances for over 10 years. They have a more local fan based but have cross country relevance as they have played in 13 states and numerous cities. Also note that there is no competition for namesake so the most relevant article relating to Briokids would be the Briokids article that is currently posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayfordButtram (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — GayfordButtram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just a quick point of order: This user appears to have been blocked for an improper user name, as well as a possible abuse of having multiple accounts. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sorry that someone can not use their name as a username, therefore, a second account had to be established since the first was disabled. Wikipedia must have been handed over to and controlled by retards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk)

I don't understand why briokids can't have it's own wikipedia page just because everything is self-published. Isn't the whole point of wikipedia the DIY ethic? This is what the briokids stand for, and because they give their music away for free and have the energy to self-publish with no expectation of reward, should they really be chastized for this? Wikipedia is a great site but this move seems a little hypocritical, if hard working musicians and music/art enthusiasts alike like the briokids cant get their own page while there's so many other random wikipedia pages I feel I must revert to using a real encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando rhr (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Brando rhr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOBLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Isn't the whole point of wikipedia the DIY ethic?" No, Wikipedia is based on the Five Pillars, the second pillar involves a neutral point of view reinforced by information verified by reliable sources independent of the subject. This article lacks any of that. -- Atama頭 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a DIY ethic about wikipedia. But that doesn't supercede the need to meet inclusion guidelines. There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Sinical magazine does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be or is not a reliable source? I think that Wikipedia should be more definitive as they seem to be with everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briokids records reviews have been published in a nationally distributed magazine twice. Grooves magazine Issue 6 and Issue 11. this information had been posted to present relevance but was taken down by wikipedia personel. unfortunatley Grooves magazine no longer exists but copies are still available for verification. Briokids is also listed on Wikipedia's Houston_noise as a notable band in the Houston Noise scene (see decade 2000's). If i'm not mistaken, wikipedia verifies their sources so why would Briokids be listed on their site if the info had not been valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.121.141 (talk)

Briokids once killed my father and raped my mother while blasting noisestep and chainsaw remixes. This was covered extensively by the Houston Press magazine. To delete this article is to delete history. Why must you further the hurt Briokids has caused my family by not allowing them to appear on Wikipedia so I can continually edit the article with false information? Is it because I'm black? You racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.32.7 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am starting to believe that Wikipedia could be funded by the Brio Site task force, hence the urge to remove all information related to the brio mutations. This site is real and the mutations did happen, you do not just destroy an entire subdivision because of heresy. Just saying if Southeast Memorial Hospital can be enticed to destroy records Wikipedia and it's gang of Nazis could easily be swayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk)

Keep - I think they meet the minimum requirements for a band. They have a discography, have preformed at numerous venues, have a fan base. That solidifies their identity as a band. Though there may not be many national sources that reference them, there are source that mention them so therefore should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.178.169 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Google Doodles (early close and bold redirect). Neutrality^talk 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Guitar[edit]

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

Is this article notable enough, as Google will only have it for one day? Possible merge to Google article maybe? Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Google Doodles where this doodle is already discussed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 23:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Merge and redirect, but maybe Les Paul#Awards and honors would also be an appropriate target. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been redirected without discussion. Make it so.Agent 86 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Google Doodles. Deor (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a mention on main Google page. Indeed this should've been done sans discussion, as the article is too short and would suit better on the Google page. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:38, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Novak[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. This college athlete does not appear to have significant press coverage in reliable sources, and as such fails the notability requirements for a college athlete. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not asserted, and lack of coverage in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - totally not notable. andy (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill college player with few references about himself instead of his involvement on the team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:30, 15 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brycheiniog (magazine)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. User:Neutrality PRODed the article, but I'm not ready to let this one go down without more scrutiny. The Brecknock Society is very old (~1728), and it would very much surprise me that this publication is not notable under WP:NJOURNALS, particularly Criterion 3. However, I haven't heard of it before today, so maybe it's not as notable as appearances may hint. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added several sources that assert notability and value. Jokestress (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established and respected journal.Martinlc (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that sources have been added, it seems notable. Keep or merge/redirect into the newly-created Brecknock Society and Museum Friends (which didn't exist at the time I tagged the magazine for proposed deletion) -- either seems appropriate. Neutrality^talk 21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Green Solutions[edit]

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

looks like an advertisement and Linkedn page. Maybe not notable? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fairly good job of PR astroturfing, but you will notice that the "references" are all to government documents not about this business, or to press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF Delete per Smerdis of Tlön--v/r - T P 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Buckner[edit]

{{The removed template is a legitimate photo of the composer who never allowed the photographer to 'own' it.}}

Comment. No, the photographer doesn't own that picture, but Wayne State does. The picture file included a tag that allowed them to trace it back. I don't have a good camera like Wayne State, but I could take a picture of you with my little point and shoot and no one can complain about that. Detroit Joe (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanity page for a very good composer who is nevertheless not notable at all (WP:NMG). Incarnatus (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like character assassination. All information in this article is backed by references!User:aj4009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. More like a violation of Keith Buckner's privacy. What's his disability? Is it HIV-related? Is it psychological?

"'Comment."' The composer's disabilities are legitimate and documented by the United States government-why is the nature of his disabilities relevant? (Several disabilities are: 1) thirty five years of diabetes, 2) two heart attacks, 3) Left leg amputation, 4) right club foot, 5) hypertension.

About those references:

Motor City Rock is acceptable, I suppose.
James Hartway's page doesn't mention Keith Buckner at all!

""Comment."' See: http://www.music.edu/files/composers_concert.pdf

LinkedIn profiles, as I understand them, are written by the persons themselves. Of course Keith Buckner is notable according to Keith Buckner.

""Comment."' If Keith Buckner thinks he may notable, perhaps it is so; Wikipedia's guidelines seem to suggest the same..

The SoC page is definitely written by Keith Buckner himself.

"'Comment." See: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Keith Buckner'

A blog is not considered a reliable source by just about anyone. See WP:USERG.

"'Comment"' See http://media.www.thesouthendnews.com/library-to-feature-detroit-classical-music-1.1869046

This one might actually be usable.

Besides, if Keith Buckner knew how easy it is to use Wikipedia to slander people, he would come in here and ask that this article be deleted. He can control what LinkedIn and SoC says about him. He can't control Wikipedia. Have him look up John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. James470 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Comment"' Stating, "What is his disability?', may certainly be acceptable, yet the asking "Is it HIV," or "Is it psychological," is in the gray area of defamation or slander! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4009 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 June 2011

Comment Maybe so, but I am not legally responsible. On Wikipedia, no one is. So I ask you, is all this trouble worthwhile? James470 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear and cut case of a WP:SPA creating a vanity page. Flutedude (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, don't be such a jerk. Detroit Joe (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides, pay attention to @antonbruckner: Wikipedia: Don't delete Keith Buckner's article. Delete mine, PLEASE! Detroit Joe (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is apparent to me that this is an autobiography by someone not yet notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I refuse to believe that this is an autobiography. Therefore, Keith Buckner's is neither diabetic, nor a cancer survivor, nor an amputee, nor a schizophrenic like Robert Schumann, nor a smoker, nor has HIV. He has other health problems which no one here knows about and which frankly are none of our business. James470 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I also believe he's still alive, and if he's destined to be in New Grove, he has yet to write the music that will earn him an entry there. But if he wants to be in Wikipedia that badly, he can appear on Jersey Shore. James470 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't deserve space on Wikipedia, should be removed right away Tashif (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:SNOW, anyone? James470 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to flip-flop on this one. Keith Buckner is a great composer and one day you will all realize that. Detroit Joe (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Following improvement and sourcing, thanks! Sandstein 11:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Haywire[edit]

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

Comic strip whose article does not contain third party reliable sources, see WP:V#Notability. A Google news search yields only one relevant item of coverage, a 95 words article in a newspaper announcing that they will now be printing this strip. Sandstein 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Uncertain on notability,~~ but I did find a second article (in addition to the aforementioned 95 word article) on this comic strip on GNews. There are a few additional passing mentions in other sources, although nothing that I can find that addresses the subject significantly and directly. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains sources from Denver Post and Times-News. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crazy runner's work finding sourcing and improving the article. Multiple instances of direct coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nice work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 11:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 11 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 per improvements to sourcing and article and withdrawal of nomination. Non-admin closure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida Brewing Company[edit]

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

Non-notable building. I cannot find any reliable sources with significant, direct coverage of this building. Please note, the article appears to be about the building, and not a now-defunct company known as the "Florida Brewing Company" (which is furthermore not to be confused with the still-operational "Florida Beer Company"). If anybody can find sourcing I'll happily withdraw my nomination -- article has some interesting history included. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my nomination and will close. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 11:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unsourced and unencyclopedic information. While the building might be notable, the article as it stands is unacceptable. Also, some rather subtle advertising for a law firm. I deleted an obvious promotional link from the article already. Safiel (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This article from the Tampa Bay Business Journal has some information about the renovation of the building from a brewery into a law office. The building is located in Ybor City, a National Historic Landmark district, and is most likely a contributing property to it. That said, the current article needs a lot of cleanup and some more emphasis on the actual history of the building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That looks pretty good. I may actually have a go at reworking the article with that reference in mind to see if that source alone can help the article get where it needs to be. I just did a GBooks search that turned up some additional sourcing possibilities. I hadn't thought to search for "Ybor City" material when I initially looked for sources for this! Interested to see if anybody else can turn anything up. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note I have moved the article to The Florida Brewing Company Building in order to clarify the article's focus, given available sourcing and the article's content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the changes made to the article and sourcing, I will go ahead and withdraw my delete. Safiel (talk) 05:32, 14 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Councilman Rich Becker[edit]

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

A few newspaper articles don't make for notability, and the position the subject occupies is not inherently notable. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A councilman is not notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Could Wikipedia have an article about every councilman? No. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Baseball Watcher 15:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also, the coverage seems not to be about him, but about actions the town board has made. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of Claritas. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 zeptometres[edit]

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

~~This article is a list with no members. I'm not sure how a list of lengths between 10 and 100 zm would be encyclopaedic per the relevant policy in any case. Anthem 20:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)~~ Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion featuring this sort of article can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 E0 m. --Anthem 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the fact that the nominator was indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet. Also see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:32, 15 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. I would have preferred for this nomination to have been made in good faith but even discounting the nominator completely we have 5 sound arguments to delete vs. 2 keeps based solely on the status of the nominator. The consensus to "delete" is clear. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars[edit]

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

The topic of this article fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of secondary coverage in high quality sources. Furthermore, the article offers only plot only coverage of the subject, and there is no obvious role for any other coverage to play within it. Anthem 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC) - Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wikipedia fiction guidelines. Fictional articles should be more out-of-universe than in-universe, and have reliable sources discussing real life impact of THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC. I'm a huge Star Wars fan but I'll be the first to admit what in-universe year the Jedi Civil War started has NO real-life cultural impact. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: these timelines are generally deleted for being mainly WP:JUSTPLOT with a handful of sentences saying "this is a timeline from the fiction created by an author", followed by a plot recap in list form. They generally lack independent sources to WP:verify notability of the timeline as distinct from the main fictional article, and are usually a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main fictional work's plot summary with much more WP:UNDUE weight. In this particular case, sources that merely verify the years and dates in the fiction won't WP:verify notability or provide the "reception and significance" of this chronology as required under WP:NOT.

Extended content

As you can see from the AFDs in the collapsed list, keeping these timelines goes against both policy and consensus practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reminding me of one of my favorite AFDs ever, which also contains one of my favorite observations by a deletion nom ever ("a disproportionately large number of the entries seem to be about the Scrooge McDuck universe").
  But back on topic here, there might be something salvageable here even if one views this timeline's list of fictional events (the "timeline" section of the chronology) as indiscriminate and excessive plot (which, fair enough; gut that section). We have articles on all of the Star Wars films, dozens of books, comic books, video games... Which more or less fits into a larger fictional meta-narrative (compare Star Wars canon and Star Wars Expanded Universe); knowing that is integral to understanding the subject matter, particularly given that the second film trilogy is set before the first, and all of the non-film works take place before, after, or in between those films in very specific ways. If you look at List of Star Wars books or List of Star Wars comic books, both of those are already organized by the fictional "era" in which the works are set (see also Chronology of Star Wars#Film timeline; List of Star Wars video games is organized by game release date, however). So I wonder whether there is any possibility of combining all of that in this chronology without it being too cumbersome, so all works of a particular fictional time setting are not split by medium. That way, the lists by medium could also focus more on sortable columns for real world info. The list of books, for example, is woefully lacking publication dates. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a chronology of releases, because you're right. That would have reliable sources too. There are sources that talk about the impact on the series of releasing three prequels decades after the original series and the impact that had on fan culture, moviemaking, ect. The real problem is there are no third party sources talking about the significance of what year darth sideous was born. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this massive plot dump (WP:NOT#PLOT), although I wouldn't mind seeing (parts of) the #Behind the scenes section appearing in Star Wars, Star Wars Expanded Universe or Star Wars canon per Postdlf as long as it is sourced (through dialog), which currently it isn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, the nominator is a sock puppet and his nomination was in bad faith. Best to close the nomination and let it be reopened by a human being without bias later. Mathewignash (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if This is speedy closed I will nominate immediately after. So why not let this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already? HominidMachinae (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [2]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This chronology is a plot-only description of a fictional work and does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. The article relies on primary and tertiary sources, but no secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the chronology and which for notability purposes are the ones that provide the most objective evidence of notability. The timeline itself is a non-concise plot summary of the various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, so it is a redundant content fork. The article relies on original research by synthesis to generate the content, such as the estimated dates before the Battle of Yavin. Only the film timeline holds some value and that can easily be integrated in Star Wars or in Star Wars canon. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whatever the original nominator's intentions were for nominating, editors believe in good faith that this article fundamentally fails Wikipedia policies including WP:NOT and WP:N. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xuess[edit]

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

This in-universe article is about a fictional character from a novel called The Mython, which seems to be un-notable altogether. A google search does not yield any results, nor does a search at bookfinder. There isn't any reference that this novel exists at all. Note: The article was created today, a PROD was contested by the creator. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorsed the PROD rationale, and it still fits. Completely non-notable fiction character. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the book is self-published the information is virtually unverifiable. --Anthem 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [3]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the article is completely unreferenced, the content is original research. No reliable third-party sources to presume that the fictional character deserves an article. Not even the supposed short novel The Mython, in which the fictional character is allegedly the protagonist, appears to exist, so it might even be a hoax. Jfgslo (talk) 17:24, 14 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahadith on virtues of Abu Bakr[edit]

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

As per WP:IINFO this article simply represents a list (at best it can be incorporated into the article of the individual himself - i.e.- article for Abu Bakr is sufficient, do we need a separate article on narrations that report his virtue, especially on WP? -Shaad's space^talk 12:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Shaad's space^talk 12:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason

-Shaad's space^talk 12:28, 26 May 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) 00:41, 2 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, –MuZemike 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the 4 articles is just 4-5 reports each about virtues of these personalities, which may not satisfy WP:N. Any noteworthy content can easily be merged into the main Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali articles. -Shaad lko (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: But add secondary sources. If no secondary sources added in future, delete. Since anyone can make an article with primary sources quoting only verses of the Quran or Bible or hadith.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't the place for reciting parts of the Quran or any other holy books. An alternative solution might be to merge the list in this article to Abu Bakr, but regardless this article should be deleted. PK T(alk) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cursor (typewriters)[edit]

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

I feel that the short length of this article makes it redundant to the larger article, Typewriter. Oddbodz (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nothing more than a definition of one small part of a typewriter and not really capable of being anything more than a stub. I wouldn't even change it to a redirect because it is not reasonable to foresee anyone even typing this into a search query.Agent 86 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a manual. Since not all typewriters have cursors, this article may have had a point that became lost by not listing references. Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Mellotte[edit]

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this announcer in order to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, but it's certainly possible I've missed stuff. Lots of copies of her promotional bio at voice agencies and forum posts, so she almost certainly exists. Additional sources, as always, welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No secondary sources appear to exist. It's the problem of being an announcer, especially on TV, I suppose. Your job is to be an unobtrusive link meaning you very seldom get noticed and therefore interviewed. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Off camera 'performers' need significant coverage or awards to be considered notable. The-Pope (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outback Zack's Australian Animal fire Victims Appeal[edit]

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

A 2008, one-hour Australian television special to raise funds for Wildlife Victoria. Only cited reference is IMDB. I'm not familiar with nobility guidelines for television specials, but I was unable to find sources for this to meed general nobility guidelines. Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no longstanding notability as per WP:EVENT and WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that IMDB data is sourced from the production companies, so accuracy is questionable. Third party references would help, however I was unable to find any before my family vacation intervened. It might be best if you extend things for one week due to time constraints both at my end and at Zack Heart's end. I have not been speaking to him or his team directly, however I've heard indications via the Jungle Telegraph that there may be internal problems of some sort on his side. This may or may not be accurate, it's just rumor as far as I'm concerned so far, however I'd rather error on the side of caution. Once I'm back from vacation however, I will go so far as to make a phone call directly to him. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds due to lack of references from reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 20:25, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online compiler[edit]

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

Contested PROD: neologism ('online' + 'compiler') with no reliable sources, just two to the same product and two blogs. Seems to exist largely to promote the product Compilr, an article created by the same editor as this one. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles created by this editor are about software that was created by "Ninja Otter Inc.". These all seem promotional in nature. PTJoshua (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely few sources currently exist as the technology is very young (only about a year old); many sources exist on programmer websites, however these sources are generally very small with only a few lines of text and a link to an example of an online compiler. Care has been taken to seek out as many sources as possible however as a young technology only the article on "Who needs an online compiler" could be found. Nbudden (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Nbudden[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotion of neologism. References do not meet threshold of reliable 3rd party coverage - 3 blog posts, with 2 of the 3 being by the same author, Nich Budden, who may well be the Nbudden who commented above. Dialectric (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not an online compiler. An online compiler is a compiler that is user interactive and provides feedback while compiling. Compare it to an offline compiler, which compiles without user interaction or feedback, except after the entire course of the program has run, and it ends, such as those used in batch sessions. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:53, 11 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ix (Dune)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional location. The only references are to the works of fiction: it seems that the article is unlikely ever to go beyond WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. List of Dune planets already exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to List of Dune planets. It's one of the 4-5 most important planets in a large fictional franchise that has spanned over a dozen books and two film adaptations. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of Colonel Warden's findings. I confess, I gave up before finding that; shame on me! Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is proportionate to comparable articles in other fictional universes, and is core to understanding that universe. I would expect there to be such an article, so this informs my sense that there should be such an article, and so it is well that there is such an article. I happened upon this deletion notice, as I consulted (fully expecting that it would exist as well) Bene Gesserit. I do not understand the deletionist impulse in this case. When Sergeant Cribb says, "...it seems that the article is unlikely ever to go beyond WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", I trust he was conceding that, "this article [does not now and] is unlikely [going forward] to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", which I believe to be the case. -SM 14:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I mean that in my view it is currently WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and is unlikely ever to be anything else. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? For "comparable articles" see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I was keen to avoid speaking against a point you might not have in fact made. OK, it is not WP:OR (it stays within the referenced text, and has ample footnotes), it is not WP:SYNTH (it does not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources [emphasis mine]").

As for WP:GNG, the topic of Ix is notable simply because Dune is notable and Ix is notable within Dune. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. So, for me, the question is solely one of due weight, which would drive the decision whether to contain the topic (at its due weight) entirely within List of Dune planets, or to break it out into it's own article. I beleive the topic is of sufficient weight to have its own article, and at a minimum due weight would be too large for the list.

-SM 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. It comes from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you suggest any coverage outside the fictional works themselves? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not solely come from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is not a sine qua non criterion for notability, but only a criterion by which notability may be presumed. Arguably, in the case of documenting a fictional universe it is not even apropriate, as the notability may be found in the topic's evolving recurrence in the set of novels, films, games, etc, that progressively define the Dune universe- inter-textually, if you like. Having said that, the treatment of the topic of Ix in various fanzines, guides, etc would be my suggestion, if I thought it was necessary to provide examples of such coverage to quash deletion.

The more relevent principle here is, "[from WP:NOTINHERITED] Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right". Again, Dune is notable, and Ix is notable within Dune. This is not the sort of empty inherited notability which WP:NOTINHERITED rightly proscribes.

I've reread the Ix article several times now. Given that the topic evolves over the course of a set of works, I cannot see how it would be cut to a size suitable for a list entry without taking it below its minimum due weight, even if I thought it should be significantly shorter, which I actually don't. Perhaps somewhat shorter, but not so much as to merit the merge. Again, in this case, I don't understand the deletionist impulse. How many articles in the universes of Star Trek, Star Wars, The West Wing (to choose three dense topic spaces at random) would survive the criteria as you would apply them?

-SM 10:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The status of other articles is not argument for deletion or retention of this one: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what you are citing? Wikipedia:Other stuff exists states, clearly, that sometimes it is an argument for retention, in fact in cases very much like this. You have miscited, by turns WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:GNG. Please read them, rather that just choosing the most deletionist construction as absolute license. -SM 21:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please cite the relevant parts and explain why you believe they apply in this case. Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors are certainly not arguments for retention (or deletion, come to that). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim. It is notable in the series, but I'm not crazy about the reliance on primary sources on this page. A quick search shows secondary sources do exist, but all for $$. Prob best to merge. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail here, for example. Warden (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! =D -SM 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you mention this. I found it doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence. You will notice that it is about half a page on the subject of Mu Boötis, which mentions that Ix is stated to be the ninth planet, that we don't know which of the three stars in the system it is supposed to orbit but might be Alkalurops A. That's it. Ix might be Alkalurops A 9. This is significant coverage? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, proof by assertion. No doubt the person closing the discussion will accord due weight to a passing mention in a book that uses the Dune series as a peg to hang nuggets of scientific information on, as in this case a little chat about the trinary system Alkalurops. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dune planets. No significant coverage in reliable sources - however, content in the article is well cited, and a good summary would be appropriate in the list. Anthem 08:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking !vote by banned sockpuppet. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Dune planets: With a lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, I do not think that the fictional planet as an individual subject meets the general notability guideline. As single third-party source that talks about the real Mu Boötis star system and incidentally mentions the fictional planet is not significant coverage for the fictional planet. There is no reception or significance for the fictional planet as an individual subject in reliable secondary sources, so there is no presumption that it is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. Since the article is referenced mostly with primary sources and using original research by synthesis, I do not believe that the content justifies being kept, but, in order to generate consensus, a merge is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per detailed independent coverage cited above. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit-Kicking[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about a newly created martial art by the art's creator. I found no indication of notability and no independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has a lot of problems (as noted in the nomination). The biggest problem is that there's no evidence of notability or reliable sources--clearly fails WP:MANOTE. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the aforementioned reasons. Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A new martial art that the article claims is being developed. It clearly fails WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Teeter[edit]

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

The refs listed aren't reliable. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article make any claim of notability or significance? I don't think so. Speedy delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Santos Lago[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the UEFA Cup. However, all his international club appearances have been in qualifying and therefore do not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memoira[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Just one self published album. Some friends on Myspace. damiens.rf 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece supported solely by MySpace posts and and youtube clips. No significant independent coverage, charting works, awards, or albums on major labels to demonstrate notability. (disclosure: The article has previously been speedily deleted three times, once by me). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real assertion of notability, and notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:04, 14 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. As per the nom and one other, there doesn't appear to be reliable 3rd party imformation to support such a BLP, although there may be a case for an article on the company/website - please ask if you would like information userfied in order to do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Giglio[edit]

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

While the company this person founded may be notable (although I'm not sure), it does not appear this individual is. I have been unable to find substantial reliable sources that go beyond peripheral quotes to establish his notability. So overall appears to fail WP:GNG as this is just a rather typical business person that has not received substantial reliable source coverage as an individual that I can find. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Forsalebyowner.com. The nom's removal of numerous things turned what was a pretty nicely developing article into a stub. Our guidelines recommend "unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.", yet some things such as "Giglio has also been an activist launching and/or participating in various charitable and philanthropic efforts such as The Damon Giglio Foundation and the Functional Medicine Foundation." do not seem to be contentious. As for the sources, this at the very least proves that Giglio is an active philanthropist, and might be used to include more biographical information. If we decide to rename, this describes For Sale By Owner as "[America's] biggest commission-free real-estate bazaar", which is a pretty good claim of notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference you suggested to establish notability as a philanthropist [4] appears to be a primary source, not a secondary reliable source, which would be required to establish notability for such a claim. The second source provided is not about the article subject, but about a website which he created. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Damon Giglio. Damon Giglio was founder/developer of largest commission free real-estate bazaar. Not only did he found Forsalebyowner.com, he and his company fought the State Of California which had a law against online real estate companies. Several citations were used, which have been deleted from this article, from the Institute of Justice mentioning the historical importance. http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1311 http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1312 http://choice.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1313&Itemid=165 I beleive these are all reliable sources. I would like to continue to make this artcle better. Thanks,AlanHoes (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All three of those references are on a website from a specific law firm, which appears to be affiliated with the company started by the article subject according to the first link which states, "The lead attorney in this case for the Institute for Justice is Steve Simpson." The last two of the links were press releases designed to publicize the lawsuit the company started by the article subject was involved in. As such, these do not appear to be secondary reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above citations have come from the Institute of justice law firm. They did cite quotes from the law case. I have found additional cites which state many of the same items. http://www.californiabusinesslitigation.com/2007/03/internet_free_speech_lawsuit_t.html "California consumers, a federal district court granted summary judgment this past November in favor of the Institute for Justice and its client, ForSaleByOwner.com, in its First Amendment challenge to California’s real estate licensing law. Finding the licensing requirement “wholly arbitrary,” the court ruled that the State could not require classified advertising websites such as ForSaleByOwner.com to obtain a real estate license while allowing newspaper-owned websites to operate without one." http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1466&Itemid=194 http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/lawreview/documents/Prizio_Note_Final.pdf https://www.judicialview.com/Law-Articles/Intellectual-Property/Money-for-Nothing-Listings-for-Free/Constitutional-Implications-of-Subjecting-For-Sale-By-Owner-Websites-to-Real-Estate-Broker-Licensing-Statutes/32/4671 http://www.prweb.com/releases/forsalebyowner/report/prweb1157434.htm http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20030526_fsbolicense.htm — AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Of these additional references you just provided only one of them even mentions Damon Giglio [5] and it is on the lawfirm site for Institute for Justice, who was representing his company. The mention is just in a caption of the photo. None of the other cites mention him at all, which further suggests that he is not notable. Perhaps his company is (although that is not clear from those citations either as the bulk of them are from the law firm representing the company, press releases, and blog posts - none of which are truly a reliable source by Wikipedia standards). A source like [6] which you included from PRWeb is just a press release service, not a reliable secondary source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These cites do provide evidents of notability for Damon Giglio this ,at the very least proves that Giglio is an active philanthropist, and might be used to include more biographical information.And, this describes For Sale By Owner as "[America's] biggest commission-free real-estate bazaar", which is a pretty good claim of notability. This cite does talk about Damon Giglio. I found some other wikipedia profiles that I modeled after in with they talk about the individuals and then their companies. See Sam Roddick on wikipedia. There is little about herself and more about Coco De Mer and Bondage for Freedom as she was the founder. Please let me know the thoughts, Thanks,AlanHoes (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)— AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The Lukeman link you provided appears to be a primary source, and as such is really original research unless you can find mention of it in a secondary reliable source. Can you find some news articles in reliable sources reporting him as an active philanthropist? Once again the Observer article may possibly be used to establish notability for his company (although that is a separate issue), but it doesn't mention him at all, so it is not really going to establish him as notable. Finding other articles that require better sourcing is not directly relevant (See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for more details). But if you have found other articles that require additional sourcing work, or have questionable notability, please do go ahead an improve them or tag them so someone else can work on improving them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI found addition data from the FTC about Forsalebyowner.com, but it does not mention Damon Giglio name. http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/realestatecompetition/518795-00400.pdf . But the other citations list on the main article state that he is major shareholder, and has used Forsalebyowner.com to take the real estate laws in California to court. I have added 2 paragraphs to the Damon Giglio--Early Life and Forsalebyowner.com. If Damon Giglio is the person behind Forsalebyowner.com and it states that in the citations below, does that not relate the 2 and make the person responsible, the notable one as well?. I am searching for addition articles for the philanthropy section to make it verifiable. Thanks for your suggestions and help. AlanHoes (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 1.^ USAToday/As states interfere with Internet sales, public pays/ForSalebyOwner.com files suit [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-18-edit_x.htm2.^ Gary Weitman (22nd May, 2006). "Tribune Interactive Acquires ForSaleByOwner.com". Tribune Company. http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?p=541. Retrieved 1 June 2011. 3.^ "AGC sues former client for fraud, breach of contract", Boston Business Journal, September 4, 2006.4.^ FTC (Nov 28, 2005). "a federal judge in Sacramento ruled in favor of web publisher ForSaleByOwner.com". FTC. http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/realestatecompetition/518795-00400.pdf. AlanHoes (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Comment I have researched and found several news articles that seem to be reliable sources reporting him as an active philanthropist. They include:http://www.functionalmedicine.org/support/af_donor.asp http://www.lukeman.com/projectoatmeal/donor%20spotlight.html http://turnthecorner.org/content/events-and-photos http://www.marchofdimes.com/downloads/2009AnnualReport.pdf http://www.saveellisisland.org/site/PageServer?pagename=support_honorroll http://oldsite.turnthecorner.org/sponsors.htm http://keepachildalive.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/pdf/KCA_07AR.pdf http://208.74.202.108/chapterassets/files/ThanksToOurSupporters2009.pdf http://www.mindsmatter.org/docs/ar/2010AR.pdf Thanks,AlanHoes (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — AlanHoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Thank you for researching all of these additional sources. However they all appear to be primary sources, not secondary reliable sources which are more along the lines of a secondary newspaper report, etc. Donor lists at charities have dozens of names and amount to just primary data. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established - my searches didn't turn up anything approaching significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel González[edit]

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

No obvious claim to notability. Only one secondary source here deals with Gonzalez in depth, discussing an incident about parking tickets. Other secondary sources include official poll results in which he failed to achieve elected office, and an anonymous Internet comment criticizing him. Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Khazar (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN; unelected, and no significant discussion in reliable sources. At the very least that forum page has to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I failed to expand the article because of time matters, I promise to get to it as soon as possible; I am sure there are many sources around to help get this to a better 'spotlight' (dyk) in the near future. González has been involved in several political incidents, though the only one listed in the article is about the parking tickets. I'll do my best, as soon as possible, but please withdraw the nomination. I even took the time to take González a photograph :D Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diego, can you just give a few links to reliable sources first to clearly demonstrate notability? Right now the sources in the article seem to really be a stretch. If you don't mind, I'd like to go ahead and just delete the anonymous commenter from the Internet, unless you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this comment as significant somehow.Khazar (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I used it to point out the "hate" against González locally, there's no point besides that to have it on the article; there has been, apparently, no discussion on it elsewhere. However, local newspaper Pichilemu News has reported several controversies involving this person: Discusses him having a radio programme ("Enlace Comunal" - "Communal Link", though not the main topic of the article - he conducts the radio programme along with Hugo Toro, another politician, (not Pichilemu News) discusses his, a former mayor's and then-mayor's involvement in the parking tickets controversy, Discussing his involvement after he denounced polution at Petrel Lake (fun fact, the newspaper called the Municipality of Pichilemu, the Independent Republic of Pichilemu), here being discussed in El Mercurio (subscription only... though the content of the report was forked somewhere in Pichilemu News... here). And I could continue to find sources, there are some printed ones! Diego Grez (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'd consider a local online-only newspaper to be a bit borderline, but I don't know much about what Chilean news sources are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The Mercurio one would count, I'd think, though the discussion of Gonzalez in it is very thin. I'm still leaning enough toward delete that I'd like to leave this open, but I'm willing to be overruled by others. Khazar (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article quite a bit only with the sources I gave above. I still think the article could be expanded furthermore, but I think it is in a good shape right now. What do you think? Diego Grez (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely getting closer, but I'm still hesitant per my reasoning above. The GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Mercurio source is reliable, but the coverage is minor; the Pichilemu News stories are more thorough, but as an online newspaper that until 2009 was hosted as a blog, I'm not sure P. News counts as an RS. So in short, I'm not sure I'm seeing 2+ instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, but I agree I may not be the best judge. I'd like to leave this open and invite comment with users who may be more familiar with these publications, and if I'm overturned, it's fine with me. Khazar (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Crisco. I fail to see anything that makes this individual notable in any capacity. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the article as it is now? The individual has provoked most of the controversies in the Municipality of Pichilemu, and that's exactly what is discussed the article now. I agree, the article was crap when it was nominated for deletion, but I put a great deal of effort to find good sources, expand it and show González is notable. Please revise your comment. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the individual may have "provoked most of" a set of political controversies... and? If Wikipedia had an article about every politician at any level that had ever been a part of a controversy, it could probably add 100k articles to the 3M+ that are here already. My comment stands. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of an aside, as Strikerforce observed, but I also have to question why, if his involvement in these controversies was so critical, he's not even mentioned in the article about the controversies. cmadler (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not completed yet. There are some sections that need expanding and in these ones, González is a main topic. Diego Grez (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't realize on my first pass that Pichilemu is a town of only 12,000 people, which I'm sorry to say I think calls notability farther into question here. Khazar (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pichilemu is the capital of Cardenal Caro Province, as I pointed out above, and is a "city" under Chilean law. Despite the fact that its population isn't high (as of 2002), the subject has been discussed in several sources, and that is, for me enough for a Wikipedia article. Diego Grez (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not discussing the notability of Pichilemu but of a resident who has unsuccessfully run for elected office there. Khazar's point, I think, is that a 12,000 person city that's the capital of a Chilean province is the equivalent of a US county seat such as Kalispell, Montana. Consider a hypothetical person who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Kalispell in 1992 (as a Democrat), ran unsuccessfully for the Kalispell City Council in 2002 (as a Green), and who uncovered a bribery scandal in which a current and former mayor of Kalispell took about $2,000. My point by changing the place and names is that, considered in that light, absent further evidence of media coverage of him, while the city is certainly notable and the scandal(s) probably notable, the individual seems not to be notable. cmadler (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability would be as a journalist, not a politician--5% of the vote for mayor anywhere is not inherently notable. (I'm personally of the opinion that major party candidates for national level office such as US senators are notable even if the do not win election, because they would have to be notable politicians to get that far & there are always refs. This would also apply to candidates for mayors of cities like NYC which also have national significance & perhaps Santiago, Chile, But I would not extent that to minor party candidates, and not to mayors of small cities. Certainly not to minor party candidates for mayors of small cities). Showing the notability of journalists unless they win awards is very difficult here, because there are very rarely articles about them. Again, I personally would be more flexible for important journalists at national media, but he is not anywhere near that stature-- a "radio presenter" in a provincial capital. The article is essentially publicity for him, & nothing more. Reporting about important events does not make people notable, unless the reports themselves are important. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 2.4: an attempt to substitute AfD for dispute resolution. Please take it to WP:DR, folks.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Single-board microcontroller[edit]

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

This is the latest page to come under attack from user:Wtshymanski (see Afd/2N3055, AfD talk #Mass deletion of electronic components, WQA #Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs). Rather than leave the wreckage afterwards as the usual unreadable and fragmentary wikicrap he leaves behind, I'd rather see it deleted entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Notable class of automation products, a preliminary Google sniff shows book references going back to 1988 and with a little work this article can be properly referenced and organized. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as a possible bad-faith nomination. Both parties apparently are having a major disagreement regarding the article in question, and although the edit summaries are a little pointed, the article itself seems to have improved. I suggest both editors take a break to cool down, and if that doesn't work, see dispute resolution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Andy Dingley may be asserting ownership of the article, seeing as s/he is the creator and main editor of the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with other editors working to improve the article, just Wtshymanski and his often-commented (just read the links above) track record of broadly negative contribution by deleting piecemeal. In particular, I've always recognised that the citations from the '70s and '80s needed to be improved by someone who had the space to still keep their old back-issues of Byte around (mine went a few house moves ago).

You claim the article is "improved", yet what have these changes been? The unexplained deletion of any reference to C or PL/M as programming languages for this class of device, yet adding an unreferenced section that "single-board controllers may web servers" is OK. Hardly an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there really microcontroller development systems out there currently using PL/M? Sounds kind of 1980's-ish to me; I'd expect Ada to be as common in microcontrollers as PL/M. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under WP:SK criterion 2.4, nomination that is "clearly an attempt to end a dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." I'm willing to withdraw this !vote if the nominator (or anyone else) advances a policy-based rationale for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Deathless[edit]

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

Does not pass our guidelines for novels. Book in Buffyverse with no information on its sales or critical reception. Previous deletion debate was closed as No Consensus after nobody voted except for the nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Worldcat lists 181 + 1 libraries holding it. LadyofShalott 14:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of hits fail to deliver sufficient independent discussion on the book. This is really the only thing. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing in online databases that I've searched (which would include, e.g. Kirkus Reviews). LadyofShalott 04:34, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Wheat Radio[edit]

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

Very nice Internet radio station, fails WP:WEB, no external coverage, no evidence it's notable except for fans. Shii (tock) 14:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Per significant external coverage in reliable sources by radio station KTNA, Anchorage Daily News, The Scope, and the Frontiersman. Additional substantial coverage was in Alaska Dispatch. The web station operated for several years, and was innovative, per the references. A couple of additional cited articles from Alaska newspapers appear not to be available online anymore. Google News archive shows 74 hits, including those I cited, some of which appear to be just directory listings or passing references, and do not contribute much to notability. Edison (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To put this in perspective, it apparently only had about a dozen listeners when it shut down. Shii (tock) 04:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To put this in perspective, who cares? The GNG is not in any way, shape or form qualified by the popularity of a subject. It is whether the subject is discussed in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. This subject is, regardless of how many people were tuned in when the plug was pulled. Ravenswing 05:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It satisfies the notability requirements but the article has many issues and was subject to WP:PROMO concerns. If there is a source explaining the reasons for the drop in listener numbers, it would add an interesting aspect to the article. I maintain that the history, development and ultimate decline of the station is a useful resource of encyclopedic value to others who may be running or contemplating the running of a similar site. --Trevj (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which is, of course, a content dispute more properly handled on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 04:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has potential to expand as well make it better such as cleaning it up. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't add anything which hasn't been said already. I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska has been moribund, probably for longer than I've been involved with it. Seemingly TONS of Alaska-related articles suffer from one or more of the same problems that this article does. The root of the problem appears to be a lack of interest in maintaining Wikipedia from within Alaska, so we're at the mercy of those who spend an inordinate amount of their time here parroting media topics (e.g. Sarah Palin, Lisa Murkowski) or pursuing personal agendas, or even those who feel it appropriate to fill pages with copied-and-pasted material from copyrighted websites.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From a deletion that passed through my watchlist about 4 months ago - Kal Rudman is a media personality in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Quite a notable subject, to be sure. However, the article was littered with promotional spam. In the end, the article was deleted. Don't say I didn't warn you. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any evidence of the deletion process (normally the case with WP:SPEEDY, perhaps?), so I don't have a link to provide as an example.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Trevj (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little depth of coverage in third-party sources, and apparently none from outside the station's immediate vicinity. The article itself appears mostly unsourced/WP:ABOUTSELF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Edison, there are sources proving its notable. I added in a reception section to the article [7] quoting the president of a notable Indie music store, who recommended them as a source for indie music. Dream Focus 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POEM (software)[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Set Programming for AfD discussions of related articles. Msnicki (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would this published paper help? Although according to Google Scholar, this paper itself hasn't been cited anywhere else, which is the usual gauge of relevance. Could not locate any other usable sources. Probably best off mentioning this software in a broader topic, if at all. Marasmusine (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does help a little bit. It contains two paragraphs about POEM, and two paragraphs about Natural Constraint Language, just enough to count as "significant coverage" in my opinion, and it certainly qualifies as an independent source. I think it looks reliable enough, although the lack of citations is a little worrying. If we can find another independent source then maybe there's a case for keeping this material (possibly merged into the NCL article). Jowa fan (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POEM is an industrialized software product of the NCL Language. "POEM", a well-chosen name for the optimization software, stands for "Programming in Operational and Expressive Models". It is better to keep academy independent from industry. So NCL, as well as "Mixed Set Programming", are kept as purely scientific concepts. In the Wikipedia article, "References" and "Related works" are added to indicate some relevant works. Thanks for your attention. SophiePaul (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a problem with those references. Three of them are co-authored by Jianyang Zhou, who works for Enginest: They are primary sources. The final reference is a wordpress blog, which is not considered a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It looks better to move the book on an experimental system based on POEM to references and delete the wordpress blog? Junglez (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article about apparently non-notable academic work. —Ruud 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete I think Wikipedia's requirements for these articles have been met; see also "Natural Constraint Language" and "Mixed Set Programming". I have followed the above advices to do necessary improvement by adding secondary sources found by Google search. If anything else still need to be done, please let me know. SophiePaul (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge. Since there's not much content at this page, I think it would work better as as subsection of Natural Constraint Language. Jowa fan (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as NCL. They are one and the same for all practical puroposes according to the barely readable primary source [8]. Unlike Impromptu, no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here. What a deal. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be kept. POEM/NCL has many users and applications. Some questions: Would you like the fans all come to vote here? It makes any sense that I ask a POEM user to vote by adding a "Keep"? That would really be a deal. People are very busy with their work. In such a debate, it does not suffice that I defend logically the article by answering all questions and comments? What difference does it make at all if in the place of each "SophiePaul" it is an "X" that you do not know at all?
- More sources have been added; see "Related works" in the NCL article (with more explanation).
- Moreover, POEM is an industrial implementation of NCL. Practical applications have proved NCL's value. If an academic work such as NCL has no application, it will not be quite meaningful. It makes great sense if POEM/NCL is applied in supply chain, manufacturing, airline planning, high-speed train planning, personnel planning, etc. SophiePaul (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your question asking if we'd "like the fans all come to vote here" followed immediately by the appearance of additional WP:SPAs Petterclp and Logicfan suggest you've been WP:CANVASSing, SophiePaul. This is not a good thing. Msnicki (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please: That was a question to FuFoFuEd only, not to all. After a whole day of work, in the night I editted those texts as a response to FuFoFuEd's challenging comment "no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here". Don't you think that it was FuFoFuEd who was misleading? I do hope that the debate is kind and serious. I sincerely hope that was not a pitfall. SophiePaul (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am certainly not responsible for the "fans" voting below, if that's what you are suggesting. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested nothing. In my question to you there was even no "keep", while in yours there is a "keep"! SophiePaul (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think this article is notable enough. But please improve. Petterclp (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Petterclp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Convinced by SophiePaul's arguments, I vote for this article. Logicfan (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Logicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another argument for the lack of notability of NCL/POEM/MSP is that there's no mention of any of J. Zhou's work in the comprehensive Handbook of constraint programming (2006). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should be kept (and improved) because:
- This POEM article helps to complement the other two from an industrial point of view.
- I agree with SophiePaul. The importance of an academic work is well proved if it has been put into practice successfully. Ortech123 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Ortech123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) v/r - T P 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Chadbourn[edit]

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

Reads like an obituary from a family member. Doesn't appear to satisfy notability thresholds. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites and WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Named chair at Harvard, obituary in the New York Times. What more do we need? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that an obit in a major national newspaper such as the New York Times is probably enough to make him notable on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Incidentally, there's also an award named after him. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator might like to withdraw this inappropriate nomination to reduce the workload of contributors to this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein and Xxanthippe above. At the very least, passes WP:Prof#C5 as holder of a named chair at Harvard. To be fair to the nominator, at the time of nomination the article looked like this:[9], and it indeed read like an obit written by a family member. Shortly after the nomination, I removed several large chunks of WP:OR/resume type stuff, and in its current form the article is a reasonable stub. Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chadbourn was a major figure in the law of evidence in the U.S. The law of evidence is not important? It is important and Chadbourn was important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneLitAnyone (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SomeoneLitAnyone: please read the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies before making major edits to this article. Your edits, such as this one[10], are clear violations of these policies and have been reverted. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nsk92, 1. The prior "edit" of the entry deleted most of it, and it amounted to a deletion of the entry for Chadbourn. 2. General point (to all), Biographical sketches even in an encyclopedia do not have to be bare of all personal details. Chadbourn had an impact on people (e.g., former Justice Souter) in part because of his Chadbourn's wit. And isn't it interesting and perhaps important that Chardborn participated in the anti-lynching campaign in the early 1930s? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneLitAnyone (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, my edit removed most of the entry that you wrote, as was necessary since your text was written in a way almost entirely incompatible with Wikipedia's standard's and policies. Your text was written in the style of an enthusiastic personal tribute - the thing prohibited by WP:NPOV, one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies. It was also written largely as a piece of original research - which is again prohibited by another fundamental Wikipedia editing policy, WP:NOR. It is not an issue of being interesting (of course the subject is interesting), it is an issue of how your text is written. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the contributors here think the subject is interesting (and notable), apart from the nominator, most of whose edits have been in the area of basketball. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinea summer camp[edit]

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

This appears mainly to be an advertising page (some of the most egregious I've deleted already). I declined a speedy deletion based upon the claim of being "the biggest Dutch travel organization for..." However, I am not finding evidence of reliable secondary sources. Perhaps there are some in Dutch; if someone can find them, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. LadyofShalott 13:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and non-notable. I am quite surprised that there are only two Google hits outside of Wikipedia, and one of them is on the toolserver. There may be Dutch dutch sources, but it doesn't seem likely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and AGF on the Dutch-language sources. Feel free to withdraw, LadyofShalott. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look harder, dear Crisco. I dug up three reliable hits and have added them to the article, with tweaks and all. I will grant you immediately that this is not a ton of hits (the Dutch media aren't as wired as the ones in the US), but what they say is reliable enough and establishes notability, in my opinion: they are the oldest such company, and one of the biggest players on the market. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since someone else has said delete, I can't just withdraw the nom. as promised. However, I do change my opinion to keep per the references found and added by Drmies. LadyofShalott 16:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sending a bunch of those french-fries fed Dutch boys aged 15-17 from the Vinea bodybuilding camp over to Crisco. They'll take care of it. (I wish I could find more references, but it is what it is.) Drmies (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - the next person to happen along please feel free to close this as a speedy keep. LadyofShalott 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Ortiz (coach)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball coach. I normally allow don't AfD active minor league managers, but coaches are another story. I don't think he's worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, but I have an issue with your rationale. You "allow" active minor league managers? It's not up to you, it's up to the notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that at like 3 in the morning I think, so I was a little groggy. What I meant is that when I come across an active minor league manager, I don't AfD him. Alex (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his minor league coaching is notable, but his coaching for the Central University of Venezuela might be, if he was the head coach rather than an assistant. That's one of Venezuela's most prominent schools, and baseball is very popular in Venezuela, so it'd be the VZ equivalent of coaching a major NCAA program. I don't know Spanish, though, so I wasn't able to do a very good job of looking for sources - maybe someone who can habla Espanol can do a quick check? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Baseball Watcher 17:12, 13 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. There is consensus below that this article is an appropriate part of our coverage of video games console history. On the other hand, there are several calls to consider renaming this article or indeed much of the "Xth generation" series that could be considered as a requested move or RfC. This closure to keep History of video game consoles (eighth generation) is without prejudice to the outcome of any such renaming discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)[edit]

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

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

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

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

As noted, this article has had a cycle of creation and deletion several times before. In this cycle, though the last close [11] was to delete and salt, it was gotten around by capitalizing the "E" of "Eighth", but has been subsequently moved here.)

Now, to step back, this arguably is a substantially different version of the previous deleted pages with the announcements of the Wii U and PS Vita units. But, and this is important, there are no sources that have defined either of these as "eighth generation" units. Though Nintendo, Sony, and other journalists have called them "next generation" units of units that are listed in the seventh generation, the term "next generation" is a loaded peacock term in the press simply to describe any new version of hardware. Using the facts that "Nintendo Wii is 7th gen" and "Wii U is claimed to be next gen" to come to the statement "Wii U is 8th gen" is a gross violation of WP:SYNTH at this point. It is also contrary to how generations are more commonly defined, usually based on when all console makers make major shifts in hardware and software (eg 6th to 7th gen consoles are differed by the emphasis in high definition, online functionality, and motion sensing). The consoles listed here do not drastically change the landscape of hardware, so even by that measure it is difficult to call them 8th gen units.

The short answer: there are no sources to support the "eighth generation" part of this article. The other details are either already in the seventh generation or respective console articles already. MASEM (t) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to add: I do see that the first three sources on the page are claiming "Wii U is eighth generation". However, while I don't necessarily question the reliability of these sources, these are not major video game news sites, but instead individual pundits. The other generation terms result from the whole industry adopting the fact that console X is in generation Y, and part of this is circular definitions based on how the set of WP articles has been set up. I believe it is much better to wait for the bulk of the industry to clearly assert the Wii U as 8th gen than to go off a few questionable sources to make that claim. (This issue of "generations" has been a long debate at the VG project, and most agree that if we when by release year instead, we'd be better off and avoid the synthesis issue; not an issue on this AFD debate but a point to consider) --MASEM (t) 13:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I support a Rename to "History of video game consoles (2010-present)" per statement at end of current discussion in lieu of deletion. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<<ec>>Comment And the article was reviewed by myself and another admin, Phantomsteve. We believed the article was, as Masem says, "arguably" substantially improved. If you like, you can see the discussion on my talk and Talk:History of video game consoles (eighth generation). Probably, I could have saved us all the bother if I'd just deleted it and referred the creator to WP:DRV. Dloh cierekim 13:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that we have History of video game consoles (first generation) through History of video game consoles (seventh generation), it seems a bit silly to be deleting this article. Regardless of its past/current merits, we know that eventually this article will be created. What's the point in going through all the WikiDrama of nominating an article for deletion knowing full well that it will eventually be created? This is a waste of the community's time. I wish editors would spend their time and energy on things that are actually important or make a difference. (BTW, I'm not sure if WP:SYN applies since WP:OR allows for simple math: 7 + 1 = 8.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I note that the first AfD discussion happened 5 years ago[12] before any next gen systems had been announced. With Nintendo's and Sony's announcing their new systems, the situation is very different today. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know and probably can source that they are working on their next systems, but for all that, WP:HAMMER applies. And that still doesn't mean that MS' or Sony's next console is "eighth generation". The probably again comes down to the phrase "next generation" having many different nuanced mentings between the press and academic coverage of the industry. Just because manufacturer X with existing console A and makes new console B, does not put A and B into different generations, even if they themselves describe it as "next generation". The bulk of the industry needs to identify what the eighth generation is (they haven't, much less wiht the other generations) before we can be talking about it. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem: You did not address my point. So far, 33 editors have wasted their time in commenting on this AfD.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the point. While there likely will be an "eighth generation", there is not enough reliable sources from the whole industry to know if that actually exists. We cannot be sure the Wii U is part of that - the 7+1=8 argument doesn't work because "next generation" is a peacock term and abused by the industry. This article basically is banking on a presumption of what "eighth generation" will be, which is why WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't understand my point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want? Yes, 33 editors commented, but so what? As your link also showed, most people commented only once. So what? So some people spent a few minutes tops writing a short response. That's hardly setting the community back in their work. (On the assumption that they would be posting elsewhere if not here, which may or may not be true.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a waste of their time which could be better spent on something else. What do I want? I'd like editors to use some common sense before embarking on a fruitless endeavor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand not agreeing with Masem, but I would think that the length and detail of this discussion, shows that there some sort of area for discussion, and thus, legitimacy to at least nominating it for AFD. To each his own I guess. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of these consoles aren't even out yet and I agree that the term Next Generation is thrown around quite a lot and what officially defines one console being part of a new generation is unclear. I wouldn't accept this article until either:

More information about the consoles (Vita and Wii U) become avaliable - i.e. are they really next generation consoles
All the consoles are released - with 3 consoles out I think that would be acceptable for the article to stand
Or when both Microsoft and Sony announce their new consoles. TurboGUY (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep Dloh cierekim 16:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Since gen 8 is inevitable, why don't we userfy this so the creator can work on it till it's sure of passing. He can contact those now seeking deletion for input on when that will be. It's worked in the past for not quite ready articles, and I agree community review along the way is needed to head off trouble. The creator will need to agree not to move it or recreate the article till ready. Dloh cierekim 19:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Masem covers a lot of my problems with it. I imagine I'll expand on this as this discussion expands on... Sergecross73 msg me
- My biggest problem with the "8th Gen" term is simply that it is not widely used in the industry. Everyone may say "last gen", "current gen", "next-gen", but no one numbers them. IGN doesn't have an article titled "3DS kicks off 8th generation!". Gamespot doesn't have any articles titled "Developer excited for Nintendo's 8th Gen system" or "Sony hints on 8th gen PS3 Successor". If it's not used widespread in reliable sources like this, then it certainly shouldn't on wikipedia, which requires us to base all its information off of such sources... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now pending the production of evidence of widespread, frequent use of the term "eighth generation" to describe a set of video game consoles, in articles by reliable, well-regarded video game trade publications and the like. Yes, the eighth generation will eventually reach us. Unless and until we see evidence that the term is widespread in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. The day that someone provides the clear, obvious evidence that everyone is using the term (this could be tommorow, for all I care, but I don't see it today), then we can recreate it. --Jayron32 00:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of what defines a "generation," these new consoles are clearly not 7th gen, as they could not be made with the technology of the mid 2000s. And just what kind of change in the "hardware landscape" are you expecting? The Nintendo Holodeck? The 3DS and upcoming Wii U and PS Vita are all backwards compatible with the games of their predecessors, and thus will inevitably make them obsolete. Previous consoles of the "the big 3" were like this as well (the sole exception being the PS3). Just because the term isn't in widespread use doesn't mean the article should be deleted. At what point will it considered to be in "widespread use," and who will decide that? Eridani (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make any sense. You can't say a term absolutely fits something "regardless" of it's definition... Sergecross73 msg me
  - Sorry if I was vague. What I meant was that if a generation is defined by time or technology, then it will only be a matter of time before game journalists consider these consoles the next generation. Eridani (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably at least the first few delete closures were appropriate as speculative, but at some point, things become real. There are sufficient sources now to write an article DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see the point of deleting or user-ifying this and then re-creating it 3-6 months from now when more sources appear. WP:CRYSTAL is for articles where there's uncertainty about the subject matter. I don't think anyone realistically doubts that a) additional references discussing Nintendo's console will appear, b) that these consoles will be referred to as "8th generation" very shortly, c) that Sony and Microsoft will very shortly start making noise about their own next-generation consoles now that Nintendo has given a public hardware demo, or d) that an article created 6 months from now would look almost exactly like the present one. We've seen working hardware, we have release dates; the article's subject verifiably exists. So, by all means stick a "needs more sources" or "event in progress" template on the article, but enough with the delete/recreate revolving door. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your arguments are based on WP:CRYSTAL - "This will happen" , "That will happen" - predicated on the assumption that the Wii U represents an 8th gen system. The latter point is the point of contention - it is not adequately shown as 8th gen, nor based on past progression would its hardware differentiate itself from the 7th gen. If the overall gaming press accepts that it is, ok, then we have an 8th gen article, but that point is not yet shown. Note that this is why I dislike the "generation" approach, and rather see year ranges used. This article could easily be "History of video game consoles (2011-)" and there would be zero issues with it in its present state. But if we're sticking to "generation" there needs to be a strong definition for that inclusion, otherwise it is much OR and crystal-ball gazing. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phrase "eighth generation" causes a problem, maybe we should move this article to History of video game consoles (2010s). Almost every source calls 3DS, Vita and Wii U consoles of the next generation - so they don't fit here. Kociak (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't really describe a "keep". Sounds like more of a "delete but recreate with different criteria" or "Move to this article name" type scenario... Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an article for the History of video game consoles (seventh generation), as well as its six predecessors. There are consoles and handhelds announced, demoed, and released that do not qualify as seventh generation consoles. WP:BLUE applies here, 7 + 1 = 8; see section five of WP:OR for additional details. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a matter of there eventually being an article about the 8th gen, the problem is that the phrase "next generation" is a marketing phrase overused by the industry when they really mean "next iteration". The generations are defined more on overall shifts in hardware, and that's not what is being yet shown here. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument over whether sources are reporting the Wii U as "eighth generation" or simply "next generation" strikes me as a little off point. The numbering system used by the Wikipedia articles is simply not very commonly used. That's not a bad thing, because it is used elsewhere occasionally and it allows us to have coherent articles on the various game generations (which ARE well supported by sources), but it makes it kind of ridiculous go searching on the internet to see whether or not the term eighth generation is commonly used. The only option I can see other than keeping this article would be folding the content into the seventh generation article. This makes very little sense to me, as it would place the Wii and Wii U in the same generation, something contradicted by just about every source reporting on the Wii U. It's not like we can just pretend the Wii U was never announced. Honestly though, I think we need to reconsider the structure of the history articles. They work really well for the 3rd through 6th generations and possibly for the first two as well, but it seems like going forward things are going to be much more hazy and less well-defined. Jeff8765 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this gets to the heart of the matter: the generations 2-6 were pretty easy to define with hard edges; going forward, its more difficult, and why a number of video game editors (not enough to establish consensus to make the change) supported replacing the generations with year ranges, which are not original research and easily verified. Right now, it is too fuzzy to say for sure if the Wii U is 8th gen, but it certainly is a console in the "2011-present" time period. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one wants to "pretend the Wii U" didn't happen. This isn't supposed to be a criticism of the Wii U or any of the other systems considered for this "8th gen". It's a criticism of this categorization of generation as a whole. And no one wants to "fold it into 7th gen" either. I think the first step to changing things is to not categorize this as a subjective "8th gen", and once we've established that, go back and re-work past "generations" as well into something more objective. (Like years, as Masem suggested above.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's that outlandish for the WiiU to eventually end up in the same generation as the Wii--or maybe I should say end up in the same generation as the 360/PS3, if those turn out to be its major competitors. For all we know now, it may turn out that the release of the Kinect/Move + WiiU was the dividing line between the first part of the 7th gen cycle when everyone had different basic capabilities and... whatever happens now that motion + HD + online are standard everywhere. Maybe there'll even be a couple new big killer features (based on the handhelds? tight handheld integration?) which are sufficient that people define an 8th gen that actually includes the PS3 and/or 360. My point being--everything is highly speculative until the competition is actually underway, whether by release of consoles or even just competing hardware/feature announcements. JTSpender (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let it be. It's already happening. Generations are really less about technical prowess of the machines -- which always increases to some degree -- but more about the competitive business cycles of hardware. Groups of consoles are purposed to succeed their predecessors[14] and compete against their counterparts in the marketplace. This much should be obvious to the observer. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; generations are more about the business aspect of the industry then they are about the technical aspect of the industry. Consider the Atari Flashback and the Atari Flashback 2; one is a sixth generation console, and the other is a seventh generation console. Both are based on the concept of a system on a chip, and both are technologically similar. The only reason one is a "sixth generation" console and the other is a "seventh generation" console, is that one succeeded the other, and one was released alongside other seventh generation consoles. Looking at the technical aspect of things for a moment, the 3DS, PS Vita, and Wii U clearly don't belong alongside seventh generation consoles. The 3DS utilizes glasses-free 3D graphics, which to the best of my knowledge, is an industry-first for handheld devices. The PS Vita incorporates 3G cellular connectivity, which I don't believe has been incorporated into any other dedicated handheld gaming device. The Wii U allows the console to stream an entire game to the controller without any form of processor inside of the controller itself. Again, this is an industry-first to the best of my knowledge, and each of these changes represents at least some shift in hardware. The DS (and its various permutations) preceded the 3DS, the PSP (and its various permutations) preceded the PS Vita, and the Wii preceded the Wii U. As long as the DS, PSP, and Wii are seventh generation devices, the 3DS, PS Vita, and Wii U are eighth generation devices. The difference between a generation and an iteration is essentially arguing semantics. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly this should be a SNOW KEEP in my opinion. We already have articles for generations 1-7. It's clear that there is or will be an 8th generation. If there's disagreement on whether Wii U or PS Vita represent a new generation at present, this debate can be mentioned in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with many of the Keep reasons above. Also, the latest "in the news" post is "The Electronic Entertainment Expo 2011 closes, having featured the next generation in console systems." So, let's keep this article as it makes sense to have it for the "next [eight] generation". Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that doesn't include the words "eighth generation" in the title, since this is the only point of debate. There's no discussion about the article's existence; all sources agree about there existing a separate 'next generation', so the concept is well sourced but the term is original research. Having previous articles with the same naming scheme is no basis for keeping the title, since the naming scheme is also being contended. Diego Moya (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest using Next generation (video game consoles) as an over-arching title, and then renaming existing articles by year. Diego Moya (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You know, there are probably some major sources calling them 8th Gen eventually, probably much sooner than later. Let's wait. Logan The Master (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, not only does that rationale violate WP:CRYSTAL, but it's not likely. Reliable sources in the industry (Gamespot, IGN, etc) don't use the term 7th gen currently, why would they start with 8th gen? Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why don't we also put History of video game consoles (seventh generation) in Articles For Deletion? If no "reliable" source uses 7th gen, shouldn't that be considered for deletion, too? Logan The Master (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFF (nor WP:ALLORNOTHING) is not a very compelling reason either. Those articles have been a) proposed for renaming, and b) received lots of references describing which consoles belong in that time frame and what characteristics define them. The reasons to keep those articles do not apply to this one. I'm OK with having an article about 'well-sourced unreleased consoles', but it's too early to say that it's a separate generation and to know which consoles should be included in it. Diego Moya (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Logan, I would like to delete all of the generation articles, or rather, atleast mold it into something less subjective (ie year timeframes). I have been rather active in the discussions about getting rid of the generations, as shown here. But as Diego Moya says, that's not really valid a valid argument for or against this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a valid argument because you are against the premise of having these kinds of articles in the first place so you're probably biased against this article based on the premise that you don't believe any of these articles should exist. These articles have been deemed appropriate for wikipedia. The Wii U is an 8th generation console, so it's appropriate to have an article on it. ScienceApe (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not bias, I'm just applying the same reasoning/policies to more than one related article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a catch-all page for consoles that haven't yet been associated with a "generation". It is far too early to be determining console generations; doing so now is purely speculation. As others have stated, console generations are based primarily on console competition & release dates, with some consideration for technical similarities. It is not "clear" or "inevitable" at this point what the WiiU will be competing against. One possibility is that Sony, Microsoft, or someone else releases a console within a couple years of the WiiU and a new console generation is started in earnest. Another possibility is that the WiiU ends up not being a large technical step beyond the PS3 & Xbox 360 and other console makers are content to sit on their current systems for much of the WiiU's lifecycle (or perhaps make minor upgrades in the form of new add-on systems like the Kinect/Move or consoles with the same architecture/OS/etc but slightly faster chips) and they don't come out with truly new consoles until a time closer to Nintendo's *next* console. Or something even more unexpected might happen before a "new generation" gets underway: convergence of consoles/handhelds, the failure/dissolution of one or more of the major players, the release of new technology that makes the WiiU look decidedly "last gen" in comparison to what everyone ends up releasing, etc. The point is, this is all hugely speculative at this point, which is, as I understand it, not Wikipedia's role. JTSpender (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC — JTSpender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. If you have a problem with "8th generation" then please change the "1st to 7th generation". SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We might very well end up doing it, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Diego Moya (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the 3DS, PSVITA, and WiiU aren't being described as 8th generation specifically, they are being described as next generation. Also, given that Microsoft and Sony have also announced successors to their current hardware to be released by the end of 2013, it's just common sense that we're at the beginning of a new market cycle, and thus a new generation. Plus, we're going to need this article sooner or later anyway, why wait until 2014? The Phool (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL; since there is nothing that strongly defines what the "8th generation" may be, it is presumptuous that we can continue organization consoles that are 3 years out by the same metric. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even though I'd bet my life on a new console competing with Wii U not being 3 years out, it's irrelevant. Since we're lumping the handhelds in with the consoles, and the 3DS and Vita are by every definition a new generation, they justify this article. Exodite (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All major sources agree that these systems are part of a next-generation, so this article isn't going anywhere. As for the naming convention, I'm fine with how it is right now (1st - 8th generation). It's a naming convention that's easy to group the systems into and refer to, which is essential. If we're going by what sources/people say, then I rarely see people refer to the SNES as part of the "fourth generation", but I absolutely never hear it as part of the "1987-1996" generation either. The most common one is "16 bit generation" or SNES generation, but both of those come along with their share of problems.Exodite (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again "next-generation" and "next iteration" are used interchangably and confusingly by marketers, so a "next gen" console of a 7th gen system is not assuredly 8th generation. The reason to use years to organize the dates is that 1) there is then zero original research in placing the consoles (And handhelds) in the proper location and 2) we can still address what people sometimes call these systems, like the 16-bit or 4th generation examples. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consoles still have to be grouped as a generation. Using years exclusively as a naming convention forces the addressing of when exactly a generation "began" or "ended". Are we really in three separate generations at the same time right now? Different naming conventions don't have that problem. Exodite (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, there's no "requirement" that consoles have to be grouped into a generation. We can define years that make the most sense in how sources compare consoles; the Wii, PS3, and 360 are generally compared among each other, just like the PS2, Xbox 1, and GameCube. We don't know how the Wii U will be compared yet, particularly since it overlaps the other two existing consoles a great degree and is not a significant advantage in hardware from them. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're making a lot of assumptions (stated in a factual-like manner I might add) when all sources are telling a different tale, which is that Wii U is a noticeable upgrade over Xbox 360/PS3, Microsoft and Sony are both confirmed to be working on new consoles to compete with Wii U that are looking at 2012 or possibly 2013 launches, and another typical console generation is on its way. Exodite (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "All sources"? Show them. And even if they all confirmed that, you still haven't addressed the next-gen/next iteration confusion. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's one confirming that Sony has a new console in development[[15]]. I could probably dig up other articles, including those from IGN suggesting 2013-2014 launch dates, but I prefer to avoid them, because I consider such dates to be WP:CRYSTAL. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant sources showing that gaming journalists consider the Wii U to be a technological step ahead of the 360 and the PS3. That's what Exodite meant, too. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My mistake, TheStickMan. Would these sources be a good start? GoNintendo, Industry Gamers, and Entertainment Weekly. In the latter article, I'm specifically referring to the quote from John Riccitiello in the third paragraph. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That says nothign about being "technologically advanced". The addition of the touch screen gamepad is considered "transformational", and that may be the defining element of the 8th gen, but that's not yet an established definition to that point. On a tech side, people have pointed out that the Wii U is now at best comparable to HW features as the 360 and PS3, and thus by old generation definitions, should be clearly a 7th gen unit. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wii U launches the 8th generation race, so having an article documenting it (and the others when they're developed) is now appropriate. E3 is already generating reliable sources on the topic. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - the term "next generation" is a WP:PEACOCK term used for PR purposes. Furthermore, the 3DS is not a console system; it is a handheld. In essence this article is full and has been of original research and speculation.陣内 _Jinnai 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong and Important Keep - E3's passed and things have been confirmed. We already have three consoles so I think that it warrants this article. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Handhelds are not collective considered part of "generations", only grouped with consoles where they make the most sense. Thus, there's only "one" console here, impossible to define a whole generation by. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. Consensus here is overwhelming, and the article is relevant to an blurb posted on the main page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a bit premature. Yes, there are more people saying keep, but keep in mind it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Many of the "keep" rationales are not really valid, with arguments like "8th gen is coming eventually" (WP:CRYSTAL) or "It worked for gen 1-7, why not now?" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Uh, many of the keep votes are backed up by verifiable sources (including ones that actually state '8th generation'). On the other hand delete side of this debate has a strong whiff of WP:OWN, which some people thinking that a consensus elsewhere trumps the consensus here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnsemlak pretty much summed up my opinion on this discussion. I also feel that it should be closed per WP:SNOW. On the "keep" side of the debate, I see people pointing to devices that are either currently available or have been publicly announced with release dates and specs. I see sources pointing to these devices being part of a new generation, and I've yet to see a substantive argument that refutes claims that these devices are part of a new generation. On the "delete" side, I see an argument that's primarily an argument of semantics; specifically, over the use of the term eighth generation. If Wikipedia changes the use of the term "nth generation," the article can always be renamed, but deleting it now seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no way there can be SNOW as neither side has an argument that is completed dismissed - eg there's no obvious consensus yet.
    - But you're asking people to prove a negative, eg "Find articles that say that the Wii U is not an eighth generation console" which of course aren't going to happen. Instead, I can point to two leading industry figures, John Carmack [16] and Wedbush Securities [17] that place the Wii U in with the 360 and PS3, and certainly not as a separate class or generation. This comes down to the fact that the "eighth generation" will only happen when the industry as a whole adopts the term, not just because one or two pundits say that a console is an 8th gen console. Will the 8th gen happen? Certainly, but we don't know when - it may have already happened as I've seen some creative analysts consider the grouping of motion sensing and control on top of the existing consoles to be a new generation in-of-itself. But I wouldn't call for an eighth gen just because of this. It needs to be a universally accepted term in the gaming press clearly definiting either the criteria to be part of it, or explicit in what consoles fall within it. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you remember where did you see those analysts that consider motion sensing+HD a new grouping? I'd love to read that reference, since I share that same opinion. Diego Moya (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's been a few months, might have been shortly after last year's E3 with the announcement of Kinect and Move. I'll talk-page you if I can find them. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks! Diego Moya (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the main arguments against the existence of this article has been that there are no sources referring to the Wii U as part of the "eighth generation" and that they instead all refer to the "next generation." However, looking through the sources for History of video game consoles (seventh generation) (I'll be honest, I didn't look at all 250 of them, but I looked at a substantial number), I didn't really see any direct references to the "seventh generation," and mostly found things that referred to the "next generation" or things of that nature. Since we have seven existing articles that don't explicitly refer to their contents as a member of a numbered "generation", I fail to see how this argument that this article should be deleted applies here. Furthermore, the argument that handhelds do not count as consoles and thus do not merit inclusion in these articles (and therefore, there is only one actual "console" to be included, "impossible to define a generation by") is demonstrably fallacious, as handhelds have been included in every "History of Video Game Consoles" since History of video game consoles (second generation), clearly showing that consensus dictates that handhelds be included under the broader term of "console." Bstbll (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguement is not that handholds are not part of these articles, it is that they don't define the bounds of a generation but are included alongside the consoles that make the the most sense (the GBA to the GC, the DS to the Wii, the PSP to the PS3, all due to interoperability); however, handheld unit changes don't define a generation (people were trying to create this article based on the 3DS being called "next gen" which is why it was salted after deletion before). The seventh gen article has a similar issue in that there's not a lot of strong sourcing for the term itself - but there is at least academic reference that gives us what gens though 6 are generally called, and because we are on the far side of the current generation, it is certainly much less OR now to consider the 360/PS3/Wii group as 7th gen, than to assume the Wii U is an 8th gen machine when nothing is being compared to it (even what MS or Sony may have out there). --MASEM (t) 12:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serge and Masem have essentially voiced my thoughts. I mean, some of the Keep rationales involve deductive reasoning, as in: Wii U is "next-gen", 8 is the next number after 7, so the Wii U is an 8th-gen system. I see someone who cited WP:CALC in defense, I stand by Masem's response to that. Others are essentially, "We should keep since it's going to happen anyway". WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Confidence that something is going to happen is one thing, but there's no reason for anyone to be 100% sure about this. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The amount of contributor time which goes into these discussions is depressing. Cut through the crap and it boils down to whether a console goes in article D or article E, and we need prolonged debates about this shit every month? Just change them into date ranges and leave 'next gen' to the marketing lizards and message boards. Someoneanother 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, here! - While other articles desperately need attention here we are arguing over semantics yet again. There is no right answer here, and yet we want to endlessly nitpick at stuff like this when there are lots of other things that need done. --Teancum (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a different rationale being applied by the people that said keep than any of the other times before it was deleted. The entire article is based on wp:crystal information of consoles yet to be released, let alone be defined by the industry at '8th gen". Definitions of "8th gen" because a few blogs state this may the 8th gen does not in any way constitute an industry acceptance as, which is the consensus that we go on for these articles per the Wikiproject Video Games. And the whole handhelds section is out out of control with simply information that these handhelds exist or are planned to exist and nothing actually tying them to an 8th generation over any previous one. Handhelds do not define a console generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the very wp:crystal policy you reference, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", specially when "the subject matter [is] of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This is the current state of the scene; many reliable sources are producing sound articles about manufacturers evolution of the gaming industry, and the announcement of a new console cycle by Nintendo is a strong argument that was not present in previous discussions. If the term "eighth generation" is the major stumbling block, just don't use it - but don't delete the well referenced article about speculation of future consoles. Diego Moya (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a snowball. The Wii U is an 8th genereation console. We have two 8th generation portable systems. Listing this for afd seems plain stupid. ScienceApe (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Say what you will about this AFD, at least the person who listed it gave a rationale. All you did was make a statement with absolutely no reasoning other than "it is what it is". Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the article? No references, but it's good info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.165.6 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Good info" isn't enough. Wikipedia needs sources for verifiability. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that "next generation" is often a marketing term, but the current game console market is essentially 3 companies. Nintendo, whose consoles have virtually defined the last 5 generations, has publicly announced their opinion that the new generation is starting. There are sources supporting that Sony has done so privately with their development of the PS4. That only leaves Microsoft, and if the big 3 declare the "next generation," I think that outweighs anything the other parts of the industry do or do not declare about the existence of the 8th generation. Khassani (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (since my view is known). The problem that we have with video game generations is that they are defined in general well after the generation has actually started or even after the generation has passed, and not on the bleeding edge of that generation. Its same with any gross qualification of a period of time relative to a topic - the ages of mankind, the periods of painting, even considering significant recessions and inflationary periods despite the evidence of changes at the onset. I don't question that we will have an 8th generation of consoles. I do not deny that the Wii U may end up being in that 8th generation, but as there is no defined "shape" to this generation as we can make with 1st-7th generations, no one - at least, as a Wikipedia editor - can make that assessment. We need the industry to say "Ok, now we know we're in the 8th generation", and from past history this likely won't happen until there's more physical evidence of the next MS and Sony console units.
Now as to this AFD, a lot of these issues go away if there was a rename to this article. If we called it "History of video game consoles (2010-present)", keeping all the same information but removing the speculative 8th generation stuff (or at least qualifying it as a tentative 8th gen), leaving it as "the industry has yet to classify the Wii U" and keeping all the other previous history articles at their 1-7th generations, I could see that happening. It would properly reflect that the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U are nebulous in relationship to how they should be classified but removes none of the information about it. As soon as it is clear where the industry drops the Wii U in regards to generations, we can either rename the article or move the information appropriately. (I am against deleting the information, but presently most of this is duplicate from specific hardware pages). But basically at the end of the day, the term "8th generation" is a neologism and until it is readily accept as to its definition, we should be avoiding it. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could then make a clear statement that your official position in this discussion is to support a Rename. That would help a great deal to build consensus and close this AfD, IMHO. Diego Moya (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have said more eloquently than I, the Wii U is now verifiably here, as part of this generation, and there is a precedent for having numbered generations for video game consoles. And there is no doubt that other consoles will be made that will be part of this generation. Grand master ka 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't want to get too involved here, and I'm not going to regurgitate what has already been said and put foward as justification. But the content of this article doesn't fit into the seventh generation article at all, and there's a general line of thinking that Wii U/3DS/Vita do not particularly belong to the seventh generation anyway. If there is a real problem with calling it "eighth generation", then may I suggest History of video game consoles (post-seventh generation) or something along those lines? I do not like the idea of renaming this article using years, when the rest of the articles on this topic do not use them at all. --Dorsal Axe 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a widely accepted naming convention in the industry with several references already making claims to the 8th generation having begun. It makes little to no sense to remove 1 generation when the previous 7 are fully accepted and acknowledged by the video game industry. Simple fact is that we are making this issue far more complicated than it needs to be. The 8th generation follows the cyclical conventions of the previous 7 generations, is accepted by the industry, has references and doesn't hurt the credibility of Wikipedia by keeping it. In fact, I'd say we would be doing the public a disservice by removing it which would consitute as misinformation. ViperEmpire (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether generations are an accepted naming convention is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the subjects in this article accurately fall under 8th generation. A few questionable sites (most of which are stating 8th generation in the context of a possibility) do not denote the beginning of the 8th generation, the industry itself does. And so far, none have. Likewise to date, nobody in this discussion has provided a valid reason why these are 8th gen other than speculation and synthesis. "It is because it is", "It is because it's 'next gen", "It is because a few sites are speculating it is" are not valid reasons by standards here. I could possibly see renaming the article, but it's back to the same issue of defining what to rename it to. You can't simply call it post seventh gen because again you need solid and reliable references (by Wikipedia standards) stating these items in that light. This article was seeded from being recreated because of this very issue, so a discussion would take part first and not after. Unfortunately an admin unfamiliar with the situation unseeded it after the article creators tried to bypass the seed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment IndustryGamers from BusinesInsider.com [18] and TechTree.com [19] are a valid sources. Both list the Wii U as 8th generation and all 3 fit the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I also have a 3rd source but it's being flagged in the blacklist which doesn't make sense to me nor can I even find it listed in the black list...examiner.com ViperEmpire (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article has this quote Game consoles have long run in five year cycles and the fact that only now is talk becoming seriousabout the next next-gen (or the “eighth generation of consoles” if you prefer that designation) is a serious anomaly. The use of 8th gen there is clearly a off-handed remark and not intended to affirm that idea. So no, that's not the confirmation we need. And seriously, there's no way any confirmation can be made until there's more known about the potential hardware and software space that the 8th generation will have. One data point cannot define that. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment (editing conflict, I actually wrote this before Masem's statement above)I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Business Insider is exactly what I was talking about when referring to "possibly beginning". Directly from their article "only now is talk becoming serious about the next next-gen (or the 'eighth generation of consoles' if you prefer that designation)", which is the only mention of "eighth gen" in that article. That in no way states that this is the eighth gen, the eighth gen has begun, or any combination thereof. Just that there's serious talk about it coming. Secondly Tech tree is a tech blog, which makes it questionable to begin with and even more questionable with their uncommon editorial disclaimer "The contents of this report are based on information generally available to the public from sources believed to be reliable. No representation is made that it is timely, accurate or complete." Which is a credibility that would have to be for more established to allow a blog per the reliable resources link. And even then you're back to the same problem that the industry (i.e. video game industry) makes the call of what constitutes the eighth generation as has been stated plenty of times here and in the previous deletion discussions. Those two just don't hold up because of that. As far as your blacklisted source, if a source is blacklisted it's because of any number of reasons - it was spammed, it's editors were posting multiple links to it here in violation of Wikipedia's policies (including COI), etc. What was the source? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Like I said before, I seriously think we are making this far more complicate than it needs to be. It's almost as though you guys want an article from IGN that does nothing but solely focus on the 8th generation. I guarantee you the 7th generation page never had this much problem and the fact that none of the consoles on that page have their generation even sourced suggests again that we're complicating this matter. And complicating it for what purpose? What do we gain by not maintaining an 8th generation page whereby the previous generation pages still exist without the same sourcing being demanded here? Also, is using the term "next generation" any more original research than adding a year to a date for something that never had the year given in an article? For example, a news article says a game will be released on August 4th. In the game's page, the year will also be given despite a year not being given in the news article. If that also constitutes as original research then we need to remove a huge portion of all the pages on Wikipedia. And for the record of commenting here, I'm in the video game media. No, I'm not using my network for any of those sources I've listed nor will I state which outlet here. But I just want it to be known that I don't know a single journalist or developer that doesn't believe the 8th generation is now upon us. The phrase "next generation" is for the media an automatic inference to the 8th generation. Further, count up the number of keeps and the number of deletes and it's pretty obvious we're complicating this way too much. ViperEmpire (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, actually - an article from IGN or other industry level source that describes exactly what constitutes the eighth generation is what we ideally want. And yes, the 7th gen article did have the same problems this one has. We cannot define a generation until the industry knows what the generation is. This is different from your case of the game with an implicit date, that's not the synthesis that is being used here. Also remember, this is a !vote. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against a listing at WP:RM to discuss the name change, or an RfC to discuss the problem of numbering generations. Ignoring the topic of the article name (which is outside the scope for a deletion discussion), the information here is valid and sourced from each consoles parent article. They are part of more recent video gaming history, so I see no reason against an article. As others in the AfD have already stated, we would be doing our readers a disservice by denying them a page which holds a compilation of the history of video gaming from 2011-(future), and instead forcing them to search out multiple in-depth articles without navigational aid. --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an ongoing rfc on this subject, with discussions at the V and N guidelines as precedent. Diego Moya (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The eighth generation is certainly and obviously emerging. This level of new technology simply cannot be classified in the seventh generation. --Jeff (talk) (contribs) (email) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Ortegano[edit]

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

Non-notable, minor league free agent baseball pitcher. Statistically, he did nothing that would suggest notability (25-31 record, 4.05 ERA). As stated, he is currently a free agent. Alex (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N Baseball Watcher 17:10, 13 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) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Odom (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. His "notability" stems from one event, and according to WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant...a separate article is generally appropriate." The event he was involved in is hardly significant. Alex (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think WP:ONEEVENT really applies here, since the BLP policy, WP:BLP1E states " If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Since reliable sources would have covered a minor league baseball player in the context of the games he played, even those are not in themselves sufficient to meet notability guidelines, they do argue against WP:ONEEVENT for the larger event for which he received coverage. That said, I don't see a particularly compelling need to have an article about this minor league player, and thus remain neutral as to keeping or deleting. Rlendog (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am guessing when other users are talking about WP:ONEEVENT, they are referring to the trade for bats. I think the "John Odom story" as it were is more complex - his drug use and death speculated to have resulted from the fallout of the trade, and the delay in ID'ing him after his death make the story bigger, so to speak. The coverage for Odom is extensive (meets WP:GNG and covers more than just the trade), in addition to the articles cited in the article already: AOL.com, MSNBC.com, Seattle Times, Fox News, Augusta Chronicle (possibly cited already), Sports Illustrated. Canada Hky (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Canada. This is more than just a guy traded for bats. There is enough of a story here that I think he meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm pretty strict about minor leaguers, but in this case he clearly passes GNG. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:34, 10 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible App[edit]

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

Recently released app for Apple Mac. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I don't see evidence of notability. This isn't a FLOSS fork that will have thousands of downloads as soon as source code is available. As a proprietary program, there is nothing to piggyback on, that would drive sales, marketshare, or notability. (If Deseret Books sold it, it might be notable.) In terms of reviews, there is nothing other than PR fluff. (Not even a mention of this app on catholic web forums). The software vendor is all but unknown. Their sponsor is equally unknown in its area. This isn't the first Bible study program for the Mac. It isn't even the first Catholic Biblical software for the Mac. It doesn't offer any features that are not available with current Mac Bible Software. Being the first app in a new category in a new app store for an old product does not make for notability. If this software causes Apple to change the rules about "acceptable content", the way Bible Navigator X did for X Box Live acceptable game play content, then the program might be notable. I don't want to delete the article, but I don't see any compelling reason to include this article. p (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an evidence of notability? I see your point, but then please review the other softwares listed here that have a wikipedia page and tell me why they are different, or more notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_software#Mac_OS_X ... Just because they had a few years to build up and therefore have a much greater user base? The app has no mentions out there because it is really new. This page is not going to do a lot for the app marketing, and I'm fine if you decide to remove it. I'll come back to place a page in wikipedia once the app gets "notable" enough, in a few months, if you prefer :) I'm not going to take an offense for this and I see you are very objective in your evaluations. Actually I'm loving how difficult it is to add anything that could eventually be considered "ambiguous" by some people on wikipedia. Perhaps I should do like Logos Software did, put a mention in the main article and then create a page about the entity that created the software -- does that make more sense to you? Mauro.dalu (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles linked from Biblical software usually do cover both the organization, and the software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software), and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_notability are rough guidelines on what is required. Perhaps there should be more specific guidelines, either official, or unofficial, on what makes a specific Bible Study Program notable.Bible Navigator X is one example of probably notable Biblical Software that does not have a wiki article. (It triggered several changes in the acceptable game play content guidelines used by Microsoft. Changes that migrated into the guidelines used by Nintendo and Sony. It was the first Bible Study program on a game console. It was also the first Bible Study program on a game console to be banned, and then unbanned.) p (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 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. spas putting forward non-policy based votes are traditional;l;y accorded very little weight and the delete votes have not been discredited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vela-Susan Park[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable autobiography. A single book being published does not make for notability. A Google search turns up lots of hits, but mostly because this person seems to be a very active and self-promotional blogger. Disclaimer: her book was published in Korea. A search of Korean language sources might prove useful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG and over-promotes self. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. Keb25 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stick to the guidelines for deletion discussion. WP:COI is no longer a suitable comment in a deletion discussion as it is insulting to the subject. Please use WP:NPOV or WP:BIO instead 41.220.117.62 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search of Korean title of book produces many results. Same genre as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Girl. kenumay (talk) 4:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yes, a Google search brings up lots of results: most of them sales sites. The book is the same genre, but nowhere near the same level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is about budding entrepreneur gaining notability. If people see her blog and want learn more about her but from an objective source, Wiki would be the best and only place. Otherwise, her shameless self-promotion will go unchecked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.20.26 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — 64.183.20.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "Gaining notability" is not notable. And the Wikipedia article seems to constitute shameless self-promotion, not prevent it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is notable? (Also, Wiki should not constitute nor prevent promotion. This article should remain because people will wonder about who she is after reading her book/her name in a Chinese newspaper/etc and need an objective information source that isn't her wordpress "About Me." Keyword: objective)

Keep. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. I think the subject has incredible social work in terms of volunteer service, which tends to be rare for Asian Americans, and I think she would be worth the addition to wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apcsolo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Apcsolo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. "Clearly, the subject has achieved excellence in many aspects. What she seems to me is like an academic celebrity and a role model

particularly within the Asian community. If a celebrity is able to publish an article because they have one song out, why can't an article be formed when a legitimate book has been published? I think Wiki is a tremendous source from information and knowledge and it seems like people from variety of sectors including politics, social organizers, artists, fashion celebs, and writers can all benefit from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.199.217 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — 66.31.199.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. "I think The subject's accomplishments in education, community service, fashion and sustainability cummulatively merit recognition as a 'notable' subject of biography. The subject has served as the subject a popular book on educational success in Korea, she is co-founder of an innovative sustainability non-profit, which qualifies her under Creative Professionals criteria #3. Her humanitarian and fashion accomplishments seem to add more value to these core qualifications." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.51.167 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — 99.69.51.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. "I think a biography of an individual that MANY people will want to learn more about is a great addition to Wikipedia. To be honest, I don't think I have ever met any subject who has done what she did, and if we consider that self-promotion then we should consider everyone who has a biography is a shameless self-promoter. Her dedication to her work, community service, sets a great example for Asian Americans and people around the world. And her encouragement and mentoring of young children in the greater Los Angeles will continue to benefit the Asian American community from some time to come. She has an excellent and extensive record as a humanitarian and philanthropist. I think the article does add value to the wiki deck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.213.40 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — 99.62.213.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. "The information provided in this article would be relevant and informative in quite a few cases. Someone interested in the World Sustainability Organization, someone who is looking into her published book, someone who has read her article in Modern Glossy, or just someone who is passionate about Pacific American youth activism would be able to understand the background and other accomplishment and interests of the subject. This article caters to a diverse audience and is therefore an article that contributes to the scope of Wikipedia's knowledge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilbluefawkes09 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Lilbluefawkes09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Vela-Susan Park is a case where she can serve as a model for younger generations of asian americans. I truly think that this page will be a great resource for any upcoming asian americans. She has also published a book in Korea and has achieved numerous goals at such an early age. Her unexceptional lifestory should be available for other young adults to read and be inspired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.74.198.229 (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — 61.74.198.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria for notability as she is a published author and the founder of a large non-profit organization. Such persons normally merit their own Wikipedia page. The page may violate WP:NPOV to some degree but it certainly salvageable and should be edited to ensure neutrality41.220.117.62 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)— 41.220.117.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think Wikipedia should consider keeping the article because the subject also seems to break through many social conventions and misconceptions on how "Asian" should be.

The traditional Asian has been people who worked exceedingly hard, got into good schools, and then when they graduated from the Ivy Towers, they found themselves cold on the streets. I think she would be a good reference for many young adults who have a hard time finding a person who they can relate to in American society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny 9877 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Jenny 9877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This entry describes this young ladies activity throughout her life. The intensity with which she has lived and the shear amount of things she has accomplished in such a short amount of time makes her stand out and worthy of mention, also in Wikipedia, in my opinion. She stands out as a role model for those, especially those of her generation, who wish to lead a more altruistic life, to stand up and do rather than live a passive and sedentary lifestyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratvanthiel (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Pratvanthiel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It should be noted that all of the Keep comments above from SPAs amount to basically the same thing: "I think she's cool so you should keep her article." Not a single argument has been made to refute the original claim that this article does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. This article describes a young lady's experience as an Asian American. Would be a great resource to be looked at by other young girls who are going through similar situations. In addition, she is a published author in Korea who wrote a book to educate and direct younger people--definitely gives her merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.134.130 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Pal Bhandari[edit]

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

Indian actor, claimed to be a would-be Bollywood actor, but has apparently only ever appeared in TV commercials. No independent coverage. Written by single-purpose account, probably autobiography. Strongly promotional in tone, poor English, no reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable model; looks like a promotional page--Sodabottle (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALFB transliteration[edit]

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

A system of Romanization of Arabic which is either made up or completely non-notable. It has grand total of 164 filtered GHits [20], which are almost all wikipedia mirrors and forks. Zero hits at Scholar.

The actual creator is 62.220.33.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who introduced wikilinks to the article (actually, to Talk:ALFB transliteration) at quite a few articles, so these all should be rolled back/undone. See User talk:62.220.33.64#ALFB transliteration for the background No such user (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both hoaxes and topics made up by users are unsuitable article topics. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My question is: "How did an IP create an article?"Curb Chain (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He created Talk:ALFB transliteration and linked that from other articles. I spotted it and moved it to the mainspace. Then, I got a second thought about it... No such user (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused: was this article originally a redirect? But the history says that he created it.Curb Chain (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was originally a talk page. IPs can create talk pages. [I wasn't aware that it's possible to create a talk page without a supporting article, and that should probably be fixed/configured in mediaWiki; it makes sense only in user: namespace]. No such user (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just logged out and tried searching something bogus, but instead of returning a red link, it just says that it returned no results. So how was this IP able to create ANY page?Curb Chain (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to edit Talk:Random page as an anon and you will succeed (don't forget to mark it {{db-talk}} afterwards). Actually, you will see even from the deletion logs that it is possible, and such pages were created in the past (e.g. Talk:Test page, Talk:Red link). No such user (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical standpoint, this feature (!) exists so that IP users can leave messages on talk pages that do not yet exist, either for users who haven't bothered making a talk page or for articles where no talk page has yet been needed. The system isn't set up to verify that the article/user page the talk page is attached to actually exists, though several bots will drop {{db-g8}} on such talk pages. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When this is deleted, which appears to be likely, make certain the various pages that links to this page are cleaned up as well. Carolina wren (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is likely to be turned back to the TALK until the sources will be found. QeshemB (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 That seems to stick around longer than few today. It is mentioned in Romanization of Arabic (I don't have the time to check the history). Someone noticed that in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 3#Romanization of Arabic. So, the system is actually used (if not linked) in pages Hassan Nasrallah and Abbas al-Musawi. Thus, the cleanup should be somewhat more detailed. (I do volunteer.) No such user (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and, here, it was patiently explained to the author how Wikipedia works concerning WP:N and WP:OR. No such user (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable romanization system apparently made up by the page's author. —Angr (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits; there isn't anything reliable on which to base this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm currently reverting the edits on a bunch of articles where he added the ALFB transliteration. Any help will be appreciated. Abjiklam (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got the last one. —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But wrongly :). I dare not say I got it [21][22][23][24][25][26] No such user (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, ugh, I misunderstood: I thought Abjiklam meant links to the article in question. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 14 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) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Students Federation[edit]

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

Organization with no apparent notability and is completely without sources, particularly those that would indicate its notability. The article largely consists of names of people who may have been associated with it, the majority of whom are also non-notable. Agent 86 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Did you try googling "People's Student Federation"? PSF is the student wing of PPP, one of the largest political parties in the entire world, governing one of the most populous countries worldwide. Article could definately be improved and better referenced, but notability is not the issue here by any means. --Soman (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have verifiable sources in accordance with wikipolicies, then add them. Without more, your position is simply an unsupported assertion. As it stands, I see no reason for keeping this article.Agent 86 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for the inclusion of articles about political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. Notability per se is fine with me — if it passes verifiability, it should be in, just like we do for highways, villages, high schools, and professional athletes. For some absolutely bizarre reason parties are treated more harshly. I will never understand that. The Pakistan Peoples Party is the political party of the late Benazir Bhutto and this is its youth section. It's a stub and needs work. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You just identified the problem with this article. Not only is there no evidence of notability, the article is completely lacking in any verifiable sources. Other than your own personal belief, there's no evidence that this organization is being treated any differently than any other subject matter. Agent 86 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you made any effort to look for such evidence, for example by clicking on the news and book search links spoon-fed above? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the sources exist and meet Wiki policies, great. Then the people so adamant about keeping this article can add them and turn it into something. The onus is on those wanting to keep it to do so. However, it seems that all that has been done to improve the article since I nominated it was to fix a few minor grammatical matters. Agent 86 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No point deleting a clearly notable topic. There's also an equivalent category for the article, called Category:Peoples Students Federation. I think this article is supposed to act as the main article. Anyways, if something is notable, it should not be deleted. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the students wing of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the political party which is currently ruling the country and is the elected government. Deleting this article is not a good idea. It just needs some improvement. Mar4d (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Other than your say so, what evidence is there that this is a "clearly notable" topic? Not one verifiable source has been provided, here or in the article, supporting the mere assertion that this is a notable organization.Agent 86 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parag A. Pathak[edit]

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

Content of the article and the scant references provide no indication of notability meeting WP:PROF. Agent 86 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did the nominator look at Google Scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- If you found something, maybe you'd like to improve the article. As it currently stands now, the article is full of "citation needed" references and still contains little to indicate any notability meeting the criteria of the policy.Agent 86 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you care click on the link above you will find, on the first page alone, 680 cites with an h index of 10. This is well towards passing WP:Prof#C1 in this area. It is the job of contributors to these pages to determine if there are enough reliable independent sources for the article to be kept. It is not the duty of editors to improve the BLP itself, although many do. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There's no link for me to click on. If you are as passionate about this article as you seem to be, you'd do something to improve it. As it stands, I see a mess of an article with no indication of any verifiable sources or notability other than a string of "citation needed".Agent 86 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look about three inches above this line you will see a list of Find sources. Just click on them. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Clicked the link, none of the hits seemed impressive and did not strike me as meeting WP:PROF. I am also not impressed by the lack of effort by those supporting the article to make much effort to make it encyclopedic or to bring in into compliance with existing policy. I have no problem with people turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. Maybe then it wouldn't have to be deleted.Agent 86 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable based upon claims made in article, but the majority are uncited and definitely need to be to keep the article. I don't have time right now to source them, but have placed fact tags to help others find the places where sourcing could be helpful to help keep the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Your Step Daddy[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. a mere 3 gnews hits. [27]. no evidence of significant indepth coverage or charting. directory listings in music websites is not indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' the article clearly complies with WP:NALBUMS, in that if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Funkoars are clearly a notable Australian group and the album is mentioned in multiple reliable sources.Dan arndt (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of indepth coverage in multiple reliable sources not just passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As Dan has argued the group is notable, as per WP:NALBUMS these sub articles are more about providing reference information on specific releases to de-clutter the main articles of bands. I could grab debut album articles pre 2007 from most notable bands and they'd prove difficult to reference. If it's truly necessary I am happy to go dig up more references, but it's not needed as the only claim which needs verification for an article like this is the existence and details of the release itself. Stevezimmy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin this vote was clearly WP:CANVASSed.[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevezimmy&diff=prev&oldid=433509600] also Stevezimmy turns up in response on User talk:Dan arndt to tell everyone to vote "strong keep" and don't reference. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just because a band/artist is notable does not automatically mean its albums are notable. Also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE WP:MUSTBESOURCES please see my note RE unnecessarily over sourcing - something which is already happening to this article. It's designed as a stub reference point under WP:NALBUMS and shouldn't be referenced to the nines. Creating unnecessary AfD's on the early works of notable artists simply drives editors to dredge up scores of brief mentions. This work is notable for where it lead the group, e.g. to their later albums, and is an important reference article which fits easily within the scope of the wiki project. Taking the content and placing it in the main article, where one could not argue for it's deletion, would be messy and stupid. That's why this template exists. It's quite obvious this AfD is going to conclude in retaining the article, so my suggestion would be not to waste time over referencing the stub and to invest the same energy in building new pages. Stevezimmy (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' this album is mentioned on these sites [all aussie hip hop], [soulclap records interview], [dB magazine (SA street press)], [Adelaide clubber feature article] (mentions production by Sesta and Trials, who have also produced for the Hilltop Hoods. also, as I understand it, this album + their 2006 release (greatest hits) was one reason the Hilltop Hoods chose them for support of the 'Hoods tour. also, this album was one reason Vents was given the chance to work with other Australian hip hop bands/artists (he was a guest MC on this album), and go on the Obese Block Party tours (which, if you're an Aus hip hop artist, is one of the best/most respected tours to go on) (see [australian made music]). also note WP:SEP & the Q. Why don't you go and look for sources? point on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, hopefully @LibStar you will help us to improve the article using the gnews results you found?? if we all help, it makes it easier, right? :) I'll add the ones I found Kathodonnell (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC) *note to closing admin as much as kathodonnell has put in an effort to find sources again this vote was canvassed. [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kathodonnell&diff=prev&oldid=433361040]. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

allaussiehiphop seems a blog site for hip hop fans rather than a reliable source. this one makes a one line mention of the album. soulclap records is in fact a store that specialises in hip hop...hardly third party when the store aims to sell hip hop artists records. there needs to be indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree that all aussie hip hop is written by fans - but it is a small team of dedicated writers, and they are considered a respected publication in the Australian hip hop community. similarly, yes Soul Clap is a record store, but they also interview artists to help support the Aus hip hop music community/industry. I consider both of them as reliable publications if you consider the context of the music style, as mentioned on reliable source. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. many publications in 2011 use CMS/blog style back-ends for the publications as these are easier to maintain. also, many of the street press have been closing down so the writers from these have been writing for 'blogs' or online magazines. Kathodonnell (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the more independent the source, the more reliable it is. sources too connected to the subject matter can be biased or promotional. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I understand this. I try to find academic references if possible. Tony Mitchell's Local Noise site does have a few mentions of Funkoars [here] but they are from other hip hop artists mentioning the band during interviews – not speaking about this album in particular. the LN site is Mitchell's interview project – he went on to write many published papers about Australian hip hop after (& prior) to these interviews. I've also searched [music research papers site] and there's no mention of Funkoars or the album. but frankly, there's not many prominent academics writing on Australian hip hop anymore – they seemed to prefer it when it was new and a marginal style. despite the rise in it's popularity in culture – in fact, tonight Bliss'n'Eso & Horrorshow played a gig in Brisbane to a crowd of 8000 people – which imo, the rise of popularity in the past 5 years is due partly to the work of artists since 80s/90s/early 2000s – each has built on the previous' work. there are so few Australian pages on wikipedia, and even fewer on Aus music – many respected artists are not here. I think it's important we try keep/improve the pages that are here and deserve to be. I'll goto the library on the weekend and look at some magazines. in any case I don't think this page should be deleted. it needs improvement, sure, but not deletion. Kathodonnell (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it does not have to be academic sources, it can be major newspapers. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personally I think newspapers are just as promotional as online sources. they are trying to sell their publication too. and often have writers with less expertise in different fields. which newspapers did you search, so I don't double up? Kathodonnell (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here's an interview on inthemix for the album launch - it's mostly an Aus dance music site, though sometimes there's hip hop mentioned too. I've asked the band on twitter if they have press clippings to search for some more – this was one they replied with. I'll post more if I hear of them Kathodonnell (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment(keep) since I noticed in your(Libstar) contributions that your looking for uninvolved admin opinion I thought I'd respond. This clearly one of the most frivolus afd nominations I've seen. With ten reference it clearly meets WP:GNG and as the number of google news hits isn't a criteria for deletion that irelevant. I could guarantee that if I close this afd as should be done you'd be screaming to every notice board ecause I disagree with your opinion on another afd. Gnan garra 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly Gnangarra, you're now resorting to personal attacks. if this is closed as keep then I will accept. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Aizu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article appears to fail WP:AUTHOR on identical grounds to the previous AFD, i.e. a lack of supporting independent sources and the concern for the self-published nature of some of the works mentioned. The last AFD lacked discussion and the article was recreated just hours after deletion with no improvement; on request I am opening this for wider discussion. Hopefully more people will contribute their opinions this time around and the AFD might have more chance at sticking, particularly if there are any views on the possible notability of the haiku competition mentioned. --Fæ (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous AfD. The English version of this poet's book is self-published though Lulu.com; other than that his only English output is three poems included in an anthology, itself published through Lulu.com. The assertions regarding the two prizes are unsourced. The Gendai Haiku Society is one of many Japanese haiku societies but quite large. It appears from this page that they run several annual awards and it's unclear which of them is referred to, nor how notable they are. Some are open only to members. In any case the award was twenty years ago. The 2nd Love Poems Competition (2002), I can find nothing at all for. There seems no room for doubt that subject fails WP:AUTHOR. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Demonstrably the subject fails notability criteria, and just as demonstrably, there are people out there who don't care that consensus has previously found this to be the case. Presuming this isn't a speedy candidate, the article should be salted. Ravenswing 05:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to process, having gone through AFD we probably should not PROD and speedy on A7 grounds would not be suitable due to the national prizes mentioned which require assessment as to whether these might or might not be sufficient to support a rationale of notability. Fæ (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course A7 wouldn't be appropriate. I was thinking G4, myself. Ravenswing 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4 was possible, but the last AFD was so weak that this seemed a fairer choice. Fæ (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Subject really doesn't seem notable at all, I cleaned up the article as best I could and dropped in a reference from the Japanese version so at least it is less visually disturbing and clean while it is here.Thisbites (talk) 02:39, 12 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) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cummins[edit]

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

Could not find any specific assertions of notability amid the high jargon-density waffle. God Emperor^Talk 17:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great googly moogly. Deletion process aside, virtually none of the existing text should be permitted to survive a copy-editing. Setting aside that problem, the closest this subject comes to meeting WP:ARTIST is criterion 4b ("has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"). And that's only if we're generous enough to consider "This is not a photo show" to be a "significant exhibition" -- or, beyond that, to consider the "Unit B" of that exhibition, located in the home of the exhibition organizer, to be "significant". Personally, I'm not that generous. Delete. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:15, 2 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: Oh. My. God. For my part, I'm not remotely that generous; I rather think that an "un"photography exhibit in San Antonio was not what the writer of the guideline had in mind for "significant" exhibitions. Leaving aside verbiage so impenetrable and pretentious as to suggest intentional farce, of the four links that aren't blatantly created by the subject, two in fact repeat info off of the subject's self-submitted bio, and the other two are broken. Fails WP:BIO. Ravenswing 05:48, 10 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) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turath Mazloum[edit]

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

This article is about a person with no coverage in reliable sources. Assertions of notability a nebulous at best. As far as I can tell, his film making consists of filming his travels and uploading it to Youtube. I can find no evidence of his published work either. Whpq (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:ACTOR, WP:AUTHOR, whatever you want to throw at it. It's just a lot of spammy WP:PEACOCK. Looks like it has WP:COI and probably WP:AUTO from a WP:SPA as well. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A poetic engineer who is not notable in poetry or engineering. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:36, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Marie Simon-Pierre[edit]

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

Merge - the subject is not notable in her own right. She has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; nor made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. She is solely notable in the context of the beatification of Pope John Paul II. It is sufficient to reference her there as a stand-alone article has nothing more to add. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II. She is not notable by herself. St Anselm (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per WP:GNG. Despite the fact that she has not won awards, made recognized contrib..., etc. She has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's all you need. -Seidenstud (talk) 12:20, 30 May 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) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge under the WP:EVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED rule. I don't think that the importance of the reported cure or the interest it has caused are in dispute. Sr Marie is merely the beneficiary of healing through grace and prayer. I don't think that she would say that she was special or marked out by that, and that it was obtained through her particular merit. So it is not her that is notable, but the event. --AJHingston (talk) 10:57, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hewar[edit]

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

This band article, tagged for OR and lack of citations for three years, was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a search found an article in the Daily Star (Lebanon) (here) and the transcript from an NPR interview here - payment required to see it. I can't read Arabic, but using the name of the band "حوار" and the name of the clarinetist (Kinan Azmeh - which would translate (according to GTranslate) to "العظمة حوار"), there are several hits on GNews in Arabic (see here). It would be good if an Arabic-reading editor could look at some of those. Without knowing how much coverage there actually is, I can't comment on whether it should be deleted or not - I only have the Daily Star coverage that I can see/read! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:37, 31 May 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) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the two sources I found are sufficient to meet notability - and if Arabic-readers could find other sources, that'd be perfect! I have been thinking about this for the last few days, since my comment, trying to decide whether this was a keep or delete, but I feel that there is just enough to warrant keeping it. It certainly needs work, and should the decision be to keep it (or a no-consensus), I will attempt to tidy it up and reference using the sources above. It might be that a redirect to Kinan Azmeh, or the one of the sources there can be used on this article. However, whether a keep, or a redirect, I think deletion is not the correct option here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental product declaration[edit]

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

Non-notable "system". Dennis Brown (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've found a credible source that refers to the system. I believe it notable. Orentago (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please share a link or three. I'm never afraid to drop a nom when my rationale is demonstrated to be mistaken. All I can do is use good faith when making the initial nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are talking about the one reference in the article, which is actually a single entry [28] that uses the word, copied from google books. The actual book, Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects By Ralph Horne, Karli Verghese, Tim Grant uses that book as a reference, but using a book that uses a book for a reference is pretty weak, and technically invalid if someone hasn't actually read the original book. Just because it uses the phrase in one sentence of a book that no one has actually read or even used as a real reference, doesn't make it a valid reference. Sorry. The only place in that one book that uses the phrase "Environmental product declaration" is that bibliography, the actual book that references it does NOT use that phrase, even once. That reference should actually be removed. I left it for now, tagged as failing verification. Would hope you would remove since you put it there, in good faith. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the original article and there's substantial mention of the subject in it. The whole article is about it. I'm not sure what more you want. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.453/abstract Orentago (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if you google the title of the article the first hit is a link to the abstract. Orentago (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book you can even read online (as not everyone has access to academic papers): Ecodesign implementation: a systematic guidance on integrating environmental considerations into product development. Orentago (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a number of articles that this might be redundant to, including environmental impact assessment and environmental impact itself. The idea of som,e kind of consumer environmental impact statement may well be a notable idea; individual proposals for formats probably are not yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of bureaucracy for this, including a range of ISO standards. Warden (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 9 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. reiect as an editorial decison. The adminstrative decision is delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Deason Shield[edit]

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

related AfD here. fails WP:GNG. a mere 2 gnews hits [29].this is a minor competition at junior level. 3 of the sources in the article are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Softball in Australia. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Allsopp Shield. The-Pope (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to the Ones We Love[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. no evidence of significant third party coverage or charting on major charts. [30] LibStar (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be joking there is a wealth of third party references out there. Dan arndt (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whilst i acknowledge you added sources. this one says nothing. this one and this one are purely directory listings which confirms its existence. and this one is a primary source. lacks indepth coverage, where are the major reviews of this? LibStar (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the article clearly complies with WP:NALBUMS, in that if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The Blackeyed Susans are clearly a notable Australian band and the album is mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes passing mentions in other sources rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this added source is merely a one line mention. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelieveable that whole article is an indepth interview with the two principals of The Blackeyed Susans discussing the album. Didn't you read it? Dan arndt (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable band, album described in multiple reliable sources. LibStar's claim that the source added is "merely a one line mention" is misleading: the title may be mentioned only once but thereafter it is referred to as the album / covers album or by individual tracks. I've added some more material on the album's Background and another reference (it only mentions the album title once).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per @Shaidar cuebiyar & @Dan arndt there are multiple RS listed as references. Kathodonnell (talk) 06:57, 10 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! 17:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International cricketers of Indian origin[edit]

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

In the first place, "origin" is ill-defined. Is it referring to ethnicity or nationality? I suspect the list contains entries of both kinds. But if this is supposed to be about ethnicity, then this would be inappropriate per WP:EGRS - "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." If it is supposed to be about nationality, then the category "Indian cricketers" should be used. Also, this list invites entries that are not or cannot be reliably sourced. As it is, the article is completely unreferenced. St Anselm (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:EGRS talks about the categories. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reasons:

Delete all as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. all that basically includes 99% of players who played for that country. such articles add close to no encyclopaedic value to WP. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The lists are not as per nationality but per descent . These may be perhaps renamed to fit in Category:Expatriate sportspeople. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as i said 99% of players for that country would be of that descent. a few exceptions like Monty Panesar. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are made of/for all such exceptions.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "descent" is a third option after "nationality" and "ethnicity". It would mean someone like a Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin. But how many of the people on the list fit into that category, and do we have reliable sources to back it up? St Anselm (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the players's pages do mention that they or their forefathers were born in India/Pakistan/South Africa.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed. Do we really want Ted Dexter to be in an International cricketers of Italian origin category? Johnlp (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the reasons set out by LibStar and for the issues with sourcing mentioned by StAnselm Mtking (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:02, 10 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have acted as their own criminal defense attorney[edit]

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

as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. this is an indiscriminate list that seems quite biased to USA (with a few notable exceptions like Slobodan Milošević). surely there would be many people in non English speaking countries such as China and Russia and ex Soviet states that would fall into this. to link into one articles is pointless and unencyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. The differences between legal jurisdictions make this especially problematic, as do changes in practice over time. Some people will have dismissed their lawyer before or during trial, some could not afford one, some will have believed that they could do a better job, and in some cases the court will have required the defendant to answer the charges directly anyway or not permitted representation of their choice. In a few cases there will have been a court appointed lawyer present to represent their interests even though the defendant refused to accept representation. And 'prominent people' is ambiguous, as some are notable only for their offence, other independently so. Is this to be a list of everyone who is notable in Wikipedia terms who has ever appeared as defendant in a criminal trial without being represented by a lawyer? Impossible to maintain and difficult to agree criteria for inclusion. I'm not convinced of its usefulness if there were such a list. --AJHingston (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ambitious undertaking. Not a chance that it will ever be a comprehensive list of notables therefore WP:SNOW. Although the idea is an interesting one the undertaking is an impossible dream. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk)
Delete. AJHingston provided an excellent set of reasons, with which I concurr. I would only add that this list is really little more than trivia.Agent 86 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that it be refactored into a U.S.-specific list (no opinion on whether it's of any significance in any other jurisdictions), but then I noticed that there already is such a list, at Pro se legal representation in the United States#Notable pro se litigants. postdlf (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: What? Everyone? Ever? Huh, I didn't have an attorney when I went to court over a speeding ticket in the mid-1980s ... does that mean I get into the article too? This might not be as indiscriminate a list as, say, List of people who wore the color mauve yesterday, but it's not too far off the mark. Ravenswing 05:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're notable. I'm guessing you're not. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And expand with context. This could be a very interesting list of major notable figures who for one reason or another have acted as their own defence attorney. More reasons behind Slobodan Milošević, Ted Bundy, etc could make this into a good article. This should be tagged as being unref'd, as AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this AfD was never intended to be a clean up but a question of the notability of this article and fitness to be a WP article. there's no doubt sources can be find to show notable people that self represented in courts. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 10 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Mohammad Riazur Rehman[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to support the notability of this author. Others are welcome to try. The article has been tagged for notability since 2009, and the BLP has also been tagged for zero refs since 2009. Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Official Slasher Movies.[edit]

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

Delete - indiscriminate list loaded with original research. There is no such thing as an "official slasher movie". Harley Hudson (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. An "official" slasher movie is a movie said to be a slasher movie by relevant sources (critics, film specialists) whatever their country is as long as their notability has been established (which is the case with mine. Feel free to check.) The word "official" is a way to let people know this list shouldn't include "Child's Play" or "Hellraiser" which are NOT slasher movies (ask any movie critic) contrarily to what Wikipedia/editors have let the creator of the Slasher film article state...CouchJarvis (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- inherently original research. The article seems to be advocating that there is such a thing as an "official" slasher movie, and trying to convince people that certain movies ought to be included. Read the comments in parentheses sprinkled throughout the article and it'll be obvious that it's a lot of personal opinions. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is nothing personal about me claiming there are official slasher movies and unofficial slasher movies. It's a mere fact relayed by critics and movie specialists. Now, if only a word ("official") is bothering you, I have no real problem with it (the word "official", that is) being removed from the title. After all, the list in itself matters and not the title it goes by. Still, it won't change a thing about how relevant the sources cited are and what movies this list should or should not include.

As for the comments in parentheses (which I have added myself as informative bonuses...), they are just comments formulated by the same critics and specialists in books and magazines I use as references about slasher movies and who STILL STATE those cases seen as arguable or exceptional are INDEED slashers. Please check the history before accusing me of displaying personal thoughts on this topic (which I care too much for to allow myself to do that.)79.86.191.235 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to pick a random example, look at the entry for Nightmare (1981 film). Nowhere in the film's article, or the single source it draws on, is the film called a "slasher film". In your commentary in parentheses you present an argument that the film doesn't technically meet the requirements but should be included anyway. Where is the source that justifies this? Really, this list could be more accurately titled List of movies considered slashers by CouchJarvis according to criteria invented by CouchJarvis. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can sort of understand the idea of having an article titled List of slasher movies (note lack of excess capitalization or punctuation and removal of the word "official") which would cover this specific subgenre. But this particular article lacks reliable sources to indicate that the particular films listed are, in fact, slasher movies (something I would expect given the article's focus on a precise definition of the subgenre and which films should be excluded from it). Most of the references are just to the Internet Movie Database pages for the redlinked films, which is a decent source for establishing that the films exist but not that the films necessarily meet the definition of "slasher movie". Also, the «guillemets» need to be removed, as they are not standard punctuation in English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unaware that there was an official governing body certifying slasher movies. Oh wait, there isn't. Far too arbitrary and subjective. Movie critics and "specialists" have no more authority to deem a movie as an "official" slasher movie than I do. At most, it's an educated opinion. Not even worthy of renaming as "List of slasher movies", as the term is too ambiguous and too subjective, and a category would suffice (if it were even necessary).Agent 86 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No doubt the creator of this essay can find a home for it on his personal website. Wikipedia, of course, is not a web host. Unsourced WP:NOR violation. Ravenswing 06:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slasher films and Category:Slasher films. While it's an old discussion I don't see that anything has changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank most of you for your constructive comments. Even though it seems hard for you to understand the criteria I've focused on are not personal (otherwise, some of the films I've included in the list, I wouldn't have...believe me) and if those claiming it took some time to take a look into the sources cited and their work, they might realize it...I won't even start adding my own cynicism to this conversation since some of you, whose tone (and obvious self-importance) make them reach the limit of profound disrespect, already have more than necessary. So, here's what I'll do...I'll remove "official" from the title and such, add a few references from specialized websites (American or European) for tricky cases and remove the guillemets, in accordance with the standard English punctuation. (My bad.)CouchJarvis (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything, Eluchil404 has provided even stronger evidence supporting deletion of this article. If "List of slasher films" isn't capable of forming an article, this one certainly cannot.Agent 86 (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I've showed a will to change some of the aspects of it that bothered you (I just can't remove "official" from the title as it appears which, I suspect, only wikipedia can now). And I've started adding references for tricky cases. Plus some of the comments I read were wrong (the one stating nothing in the source supporting the article for "Nightmare" claimed it was a slasher movie is wrong...In the "review" section of it, it is precisely described as one.) The "equivalent" category I was led into checking is filled with mistakes (basically, including many movies with a killer and/or gory effects...which doesn't make a slasher movie). This list has been conceived as a tool aimed at helping people interested in this particular sub-genre (apparently worthy of attention enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article) to discover more films. Once again, if this list has no point in existing, then I'm afraid all of the lists you can find on wikipedia should be deleted too. Please explain to me what makes this list different from this one (for instance): List of New Wave bands and artists. CouchJarvis (talk) 11:19, 11 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Can you restore this page please? I am the aforementioned Jonny Gould and I am not the Baseball presenter. I am a talkSPORT presenter, as well as Sky News, Al Jazeera and ESPN contributor. I can verify all my work and identity. I am at jonnygould.com and not jonnygouldpresents.com which is the other guy, Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnygould (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Gould[edit]

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

Unreferenced for many years, declined PROD. I looked for reliable independent sources about this Setanta Sports and Sky News reporter, but did not find anything. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page)
comment this article and Jonathan Gould (television presenter) could be the same person. They are both called 'Jonny Gould' and do pretty much the same thing. It's hard to say they are not the same person. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One's baseball, the other's soccer/football. Raymie (t • c) 01:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the article on 'the baseball one' Jonny Gould, is an avid fan of the football team Chelsea F.C. So which one is doing Friday Night Live on Chelsea TV? Opportunities for mixed sources is easy and hence sourcing is problematic. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two are indeed separate entities. The "baseball one" has an official site at www.jonnygouldpresents.com - this confirms (at www.jonnygouldpresents.com/who.asp) that he is the baseball one, and that he works on Chelsea TV. I can confirm, both from having watched Baseball on five when it was on, and having played softball with him, that the picture is of the baseball one. However, the LinkedIn entry for this Jonny (at www.linkedin.com/in/jonnygould) confirms some of the details of the article (but as it is not an independent reliable source, is insufficient for referencing the article) - and has a different picture, showing that it is indeed a different person. I think the information about the baseball Gould and this one are sufficiently different as to differentiate between them, and this one does not have enough independent reliable sources to justify keeping the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:14, 13 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) 06:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muieen A Deen Jamal A Deen Abd Al Fusal Abd Al Sattar[edit]

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

This article is one of several hundred articles on individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay that are part of Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. While the Guantanamo Bay detentions are clearly encyclopaedic, I believe the individuals themselves, and this fellow in particular, are not notable in their own right. The article has ample references, mainly to primary sources from the US DoD, and also to secondary sources like the NY Times (which appears to have a special project online with a page on each of the 779 detainees, ). However, these sources either uncritically and without discussion re-disseminate the primary source information (e.g. the NY times docket which shows images of the relevant DoD document with a 1 sentence summary of the key stats on each detainee) or briefly report specific events in one or more of these individuals' legal travails (e.g. writ of habeas corpus denied); there is no information asserting importance of these people as individuals or providing fodder to eventually write a thoughtful encyclopaedia article. In short, I see no evidence of individual notability of this person, beyond that related to their being part of the group of detainees.

I'm limiting this AFD to this one individual, as a bit of a test case. While I believe the same logic applies to many of the other pages in the same category, I'm sure there are also some Guantanamo Bay detainees who are individually notable. Let's figure out community consensus on this example before debating whether there are exceptions to the pattern. Most of these articles were created by one editor. I left a note on his talk page 2 days ago inviting him to point me to a deletion discussion of a similar case that would have had a keep or no consensus outcome, so that we would not waste time if consensus had already been established and my read was wrong. He has not replied, but has since edited the article in question. (I came across the article through Random Article patrol). Martinp (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree that these individually are BLP:1E cases. CERTAIN people might be more notable than others. But by and large we don't have articles on the people that caused legal controversies unless they themselves are for some reason notable. We don't have an article on the people that filed lawsuits that made major changes in law, for instance, just because they filed a precidential suit. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and as such is likely not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by Anotherclown & HominidMachinae. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BLP:1E. No evidence of notability other than being held at Gitmo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not meet notability requirements. Simply being a Detainee does not make one notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:00, 10 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crouch, Jr.[edit]

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

A lot of text with no assertion of notability. This Crouch doesn't inherit notability from other semi-notable members of his family. Almost no third-party sources, none of which provide any significant coverage of him that satisfies WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Paul Crouch Jr., meets Wikipedia criteria for Notability in more than one category, that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. BIOGRAPHY: ‘The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field ‘, and as ENTERTAINER: ‘Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.’ Paul Crouch Jr., was also named as one of the Top Most Influential People in Christian Broadcasting.^[1] Additionally, this article is well sourced by third party publications. This dispute is based on broad sweeping statements that indicate sources in the article were not read in good faith, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of who Paul Crouch Jr., is as a stand alone leader in the religious community, and his role as a prominent religious broadcaster and Chief of Staff of TBN. TBN is the largest religious TV network in the US, and arguably in the world, followed by EWTN. Views on whether a religious figure or organization are notable, may differ based on personal bias, or religious affiliation. Paul Crouch Jr., is very notable in the Christian TV industry, and he and TBN certainly have a ‘cult’ following. Paul Crouch Jr.'s professional career, and contributions to the media industry and/or humanitarian outreaches are well documented and sourced in this article and others associated to this article. Additionally, this article has historical authority on Wikipedia. It has been reviewed and vetted by many NPOV Wikipedia editors. Professionally, Paul Crouch Jr., is the VP and Chief of Staff for TBN and all of the affiliate networks managed by TBN. TBN is the largest religious network in the US,^[2] and the 3rd largest over-the-air broadcast company in the US (He personally manages the day to day operations of TBN, as his mother and father are in their late 70’s).^[3] He has had this role for over 13 years, and did not inherit notability, rather he has established a stand alone reputation in the religious broadcast community, separate from his father Paul Crouch Sr, who is in semi-retirement. In addition to managing TBN, Paul Crouch Jr. oversees TBN Enlace, JCTV, The Church Channel, Smile of a Child, and TBN’s 13 international networks. As an ENTERTAINER, He hosts Praise the Lord, and Behind the Scenes, which are both daily shows watched by millions of people in the Christian community. ^[4] He is recognized in the Christian community as a TV personality and key figure in the evolution of TBN, and religious broadcasting.BermudaWoman (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — BermudaWoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. all of which were about the Crouch family. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to articles about the Crouch family are in line with Wiki NPOV standards, with neutral sources. These articles have been edited and largely rewritten by multiple contributors from Wikipedia. Improvements for the most part, although some have vandalized the articles due to the high profile and controversial subject matter.71.97.55.109 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Full agreement that family relations by no means satisfy WP guidelines for notabilty. I see no independent sources that even faintly imply notability. My suggestion would be to combine TBN and the Crouch clan in a single article, since none seem to be notable enough to warrant separate articles. รัก-ไทย (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crouch's relationship to his family, has little to do with his independent contribution to the evolution of Christian TV globally, or his role as host of 2 daily shows on this network, in addition to overseeing the operations of TBN US and international for the past 13 years. His parents are semi retired, and although they started TBN, Paul Crouch has expanded the networks global satellite network and US carriage relationships with all the major cable companies. There are many people on Wikipedia that are noted for far less. If you saw no independent sources to support notability, or achievement in the broadcasting industry, I suggest you read the sources in good faith. This article is well sourced, whereas sweeping generalizations stating that it is not, seem to indicate a review of the article is called for71.97.55.109 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. 71.97.55.109 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an assertion of notability (one of the most 50 influential Christians) has now been added. St Anselm (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 50 most influential in Christian broadcasting, firstly, but more importantly, the list appears to be that compiled by a non-notable website. It's not like being on the list for Time or the Guardian - I mean, I could also make a list of people I think are influential and put it online, but my opinion isn't encyclopedia-worthy. Same applies here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source for Top Most Influential People in America, is an online magazine called Christian Cinema.com. In addition to Paul Crouch being noted on this list, the article covers an extensive interview with Crouch, discussing his broadcast career as the host of 2 daily TV shows watched by millions of households on TBN, and his role as Chief of Staff at TBN. The article supports the fact that Crouch meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article as a Bio, and a Entertainer that ‘Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.' If you read his Wikipedia page, and the sources, it is clear to see that he is notable in his own right.71.97.55.109 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the "news" link above, and you'll see plenty of coverage him in reliable sources like the LA Times, even with the "Jr." included. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^Comment Jclemens Frankly, TBN, and the original founders, Jan Crouch and Paul Crouch and Paul Crouch Jr.,, who is the one responsible for this discussion, are beyond 'notable', they are bordering on notorious. Whether you refer to traditional Christians, or other religions, this network has probably caused more controversy than any other in the history of religious programming. Millions love them, and millions hate them. respectfully. BermudaWoman (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BermudaWoman (talk • contribs) [reply]

If they are notorious, you should be able to provide sources that say so. Otherwise, you're just making a disallowed WP:FAME argument. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid, and it's because Google hits do not necessarily reflect actual coverage. I did the same Google News search you did, but I found precious little that actually satisfies WP:BIO. Just by removing the quote "We don't just want to preach to the choir; we want to reach the unchurched" (which is a quote from him in an article about something else, ie. not coverage of him that attests notability) from search results, I narrowed them down by nearly 70%. A number of the other hits are actually about his father, Paul Crouch Sr. (for example, the WaPo and LA Times articles that mention him being seventy years old. I'm not sure what the cause of the mistake is, but it's definitely about the father and not the son, as confirmed by other stories on the incident.) All the other hits are trivial, usually either quoting him briefly in an article not about him, or mentioning that he is currently on the network's board or whatever without saying anything more. None satisfy any notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that none of the 19 sources associated to the article for Crouch Jr., are good enough? This discussion is becoming illogical. In 2003, Paul Crouch Jr., along with his son Brandon, founded JCTV, TBN’s youth TV network. This new network was specifically the brain child of Paul Crouch Jr., I would think starting a TV network viewed all over the US is notable. JCTV is carried by 722 US cable and broadcast affiliates, and is available to 16,359,870 US homes, according to Rentrak 2010 ratings for JCTV. ^[5] (page 5)In 2010, JCTV and Smile of a Child were awarded the Parents Television Council Entertainment Seal of Approval, which is presented to outstanding networks, films, television shows, and DVDs that emphasize positive, pro-family values and do not contain sex, violence, or profanity. Paul Crouch is quoted in reference to this award.^[6]71.97.55.109 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. 71.97.55.109 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not sure it's changed for the better. There's a lot of material about TBN that doesn't belong, and certainly not in the lead. St Anselm (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree this information should be moved further down in the article, but for now, I thought it would be a good idea to establish 'up front', the recent notability of Paul Crouch as the Chief of Staff/TBN. Many of the most notable advances in the network have happened under his management in the last 10 years, including the launch of new networks. Per the above commentary, it doesn't appear that reading sources, or acknowledging sources is included in this discussion (logically and with a NPOV). The article will need to be restructured correctly as good sources are added.71.97.55.109 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So much unsourced material and what is sourced is spam for TBN. Outright delete and let his role in TBN be made more explicit on that page. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.Oxy.2354 - Your user ID seems to be new to Wikipedia? I find no history on your contributions aside from this discussion? Of the 19 sources on Paul Crouch's page, 9 of them are from NPOV publications. They are not spam, just sourcing the facts stated in this article.71.97.55.109 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're saying this as an anonymous editor?? In fact, a quick look at P.Oxy.2354's contributions shows edits going back to July 2010. St Anselm (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I am sorry. P.Oxy.2354, and User:StAnselm. when I sign a post (BermudaWoman (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)), I didn't think it was unsigned. I thought that was the 'quick' way to sign. I obviously don't know where to look for the history of a fellow editor. The fact is, I am really in need of some Wikipedia 101 when it comes to all the links. When I looked at Oxy.2354, I saw no history and wondered why. Please keep in mind, that this entire discussion started on Paul Crouch, and became so illogical that it landed here. I sincerely feel the page for Paul Crouch Jr. is a target of bias. The amount of press, bad and good, establish notability. He hosts 2 daily TV shows on a global TV network? Entertainer at a minimum. If a person is not in to Christian TV, or understand who PCJr., is in that world, I can understand some confusion. But this has gone on to the point of contentiousness in lieu of the facts. I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, so I will make it a priority to understand all the links and how to communicate better. Thanks. BermudaWoman (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) and if that doesn't ID me, BermudaWoman.[reply]

Keep. News and book sources aplenty mention this guy's name. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do they mention it in any significant detail? I already responded to Jclemens, above, re: the GNews hits, and the GBooks hits don't look much better (I get one book that provides significant coverage, the rest are mentions). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese - There are internet mentions for good or bad several pages deep on all the search engines, book sources, magazine articles, newspaper stories? Why do you continue to minimize the public records for Paul Crouch Jr.? It is very logically clear that he is a notable person, (whether one likes or dislikes him), both as a religious figure, entertainer, and notable TV network executive that not only manages the largest Christian network in the US, but has received awards for a new network he began JCTV,viewed in 16+ million homes in the US. The fact that you suggested this page be deleted, and you continue to ignore sources that prove notability,have me re-reading the criteria for notablity, only to read once again that this article qualifies in several categories.In the end, I believe that senior Wikipedia editors will see just the facts, and not broad sweeping statements made by myself or you71.97.55.109 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been pointed out to me by Roscelese that I appear to be 'ornery' in regards to this discussion. I apologize if my comments to this discussion are viewed in this way. I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor, and I have not learned all of the protocols for discussions of this nature. 'Don't eat the Newbies Please'. Responding to a comment, by improving an article based on comments, or answering a question, is my only intention. At this point, I will defer to Wikipedia Senior Editors to rule on this discussion. It has been my experience to date, that Wikipedia Senior Editors remain NPOV, and make decisions based on facts. This article has undergone many edits by Wikipedia editors who have consistently been NPOV. When someone comes along and hacks a page, or egregiously violates Wikipedia protocol, Wikipedia rules.71.97.55.109 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google book previews show considerable non-trivial (and generally negative) coverage of "PC Jr", as one source calls him. The article itself seems one-sided and should include some criticism. --CliffC (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name the books which you thought consisted of significant coverage? The one which called him PC Jr. was the only one which I found to cover him in enough detail to satisfy the notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[31], I have no time to spend picking through them to analyze and offer up those that might meet your standards. However, you mention "...the only one which I found to cover him in enough detail to satisfy the notability guidelines." Given that the guidelines are satisfied in your eyes, will you be rethinking the nomination? --CliffC (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I did that search and what I found was not enough. That's why I asked you to name the results you found that you considered enough, so that perhaps I might come round to your way of thinking. I went to the trouble of looking through them, and if you're going to make the argument that my assessment of them is wrong, it would be courteous to say why. And, to your other question, no - a number of sources like that one would attest notability, I mean, but one does not cut it, per WP:BIO/WP:GNG "sources," plural. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (closing as speedy/early delete). Made up one day, neologism, recreation of deleted page, etc. Neutrality^talk 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Scout Generation[edit]

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

Article subject seems to be a neologism made up by the article creator. Sources listed do not mention the term. LadyofShalott 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a bad article, but WP:NEO pretty much sums it up. The article was speedied before and I explained the reason why to the creator but he just recreated the article the exact same way, so now I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDHT. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an attempt to popularize a term via Wikipedia. Sources don't support the term, and the article arguably overstates the concepts portrayed in the sources Much of the article has nothing to do with the sources and appears to be editorializing. LifeCourse (Howe and Strauss) is a marketing consultancy; while their opinions are interesting, I'm not convinced that their opinions should have such weight. The Newsweek article just refers back to Howe and Strauss. Several editors have explained the problems to the original editor, but no significant improvement has taken place. I still haven't figured out what this has to do with scouting. Acroterion (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to "I still haven't figured out what this has to do with scouting", I believe the article creator is calling today's youth a "Boy Scout" generation. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what they were aiming for; it's another example of OR or just plain personal opinion. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I promised to !vote here, so here's my !vote. This is a protologism. Not only is it original research, it's not even good original research. The article could do with some poll results and other statistics. Instead we just get claims that kindergarten kids "played soldiers" after 9/11. Also, some of Madison '95's claims have to be called into question if you examine the data that does exist; this article is a good place to start. There are references tacked tendentially at the end, but these are very tangential and may be an example of references that do not support what she claims they support. To top it off, I should note that this article contains some POV, like "vulgar Xers". The POV can be fixed, but the OR issue cannot. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - violates WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and the rest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (a Boomer who was a Scout, but who sees none of these traits among his daughter's peers)[reply]
Strong delete. "New Scout Generation" is a pure neologism; it gets a grand total of 10 Google hits, the majority of which are from Wikipedia or its mirrors, and the rest of which are references to a single post on a message board (not a reliable source) which isn't even discussing the same topic covered by this article. The article's claims about trends and opinions among the generation under discussion are not backed up by any inline citations. I agree with Acroterion that this appears to be either original research or just personal opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - The New Scout Generation is real. It is exactly like this. Anyone who knows at least five young people should know this. Madison '95 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any reliable sources for it? (Hint: knowing 5 young people doesn't cut it, and neither does what is listed in the article). LadyofShalott 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an essay, and it appears that the subject may not even exist by that name, much less be wp:notable. After a quick read it looks like it isn't even mentioned in the sources given. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, salt and stomp on the grave, it's OR and portrays Scouting erroneously, should have just been speedied.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was, twice: it came back. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the salt, please!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 10 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) 06:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Cox (lawyer)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. While this individual is involved in civic organizations and so forth, there seems to be a lack of independent, third-party references about him (all info from the articles comes from this person's law firm, organizations in which he is involved, press releases, and so forth). The article is also an autobiography, created by its subject itself, which is problematic Neutrality^talk 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to fail WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a matter of self-promotion. Nothing in the article suggests why this person is notable - particularly in the field of law, which is what the title of the article implies. So he has hobbies and writes legal articles. Most lawyers do.Agent 86 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilara[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Not being in the US, it is better to include the geographic area.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --Rmoshiri (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find enough sources for this to pass the wp:GNG Guerillero | My Talk 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir. You can clearly see it on Google Maps. Also in Wikimapia next to Amirdasht and Daryanavardan gated communitie. I can scan and provide an original certificate from the Water and Electricity department, dated over 30 years back. These are from the founder, later Kazem Moshiri Tafreshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmoshiri (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC) http://gilara.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=61&lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmoshiri (talk • contribs) 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, what is the issue with this page? It is a small village like sub-division. You can find its bylaws at: http://gilara.org/docs/G_asasnameh_1381.pdf • contribs) 04:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)--Rmoshiri (talk) 04:55, 2 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) 03:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - Appears to be a gated community. Google Earth shows a Golara section of Teheran, but nothing for Gilara. This isn't the final word on whether a community is notable in WP terms, obviously, but perhaps indicative. What's the standard practice on gated communities? I guess that's the issue. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gated communities =/= a town. So the grouping of buildings is not intrinsically notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I searched for references online but I can't an article that mentions Gilara. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:56, 14 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) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parakala Prabhakar[edit]

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

Basically a resume. Poor sources for a WP:BLP. I don't see any notability at all. bender235 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. he only gets coverage as a spokesman not indepth coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources, from the first few of the Google News results linked above, have Prabhakar as their subject and are from two of the highest-circulation serious English-language newspapers in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cited sources seem to indicate not only a nationally recognised (The Hindu) spokesman for a political party (Praja Rajyam Party) but also a former general secretary. Article could benefit from editing rather than deleting. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Is being a former general secretary of the (Praja Rajyam Party) enough for notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Skimming through the page shows how the page was written simply for propaganda other than encyclopedia use. I typed his name into Yahoo! search and found this, but it still isn't notable for him. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:59, 9 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) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Russia[edit]

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

This article's author has a history of copypasting articles about other TV channels/networks, and 'tweaking' them slightly to be an article about a channel or network for which little to no third-party reliable sources exist.

In this case, this article was a copypaste of S4C. In fact, the channels in the Infobox are S4C's channels. There are no third-party sources supporting this channel. Singularity42 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the following articles for similar reasons (in this case, the article is a copypaste from Al Jazeera Urdu, and there is no evidence that the other network actualy exists):

Tv World in Urdu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Singularity42 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had originally PROD'd both articles, but the author removed them with no explanation. The author was notified about this discussion but has chosen not to participate. Had the PROD not been removed, both articles would have been deleted by now. Do we really need to re-list this one? Singularity42 (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend tagging it for speedy deletion per G3:blatant hoaxes. - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty obvious case here, lack of sources/copying etc. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:17, 15 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. With no objection to merge/redirect per standard practice instead though. So Why 17:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodman School[edit]

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

Notability for small local school in question. Article created and mainly contributed by a possible COI. Also looks like article was a school assignment. (if you read USER:Woodmansch) Not too much comes up on a internet search. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Requires attention not deletion 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

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) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school appears to have some notable historical significance. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Origins dating all the way back to Lewis & Clark, who camped nine miles away??? Rrrrrrrrright. Basically, the question here is whether a rural school organized in 1892 is notable only for having been organized in 1892. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? Carrite (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - I'm sorry, but where is the significance of the school? I just don't see that a school which is quite old but where it seems nothing significant has happened is notable. The emphasis should be on showing this notability - I'd love it if someone could, but I don't see it at present. Not a redirect candidate imo - there are other schools of the same name, for example in Calgary and Dover. It also appears the article was speedily deleted on or around 2011-05-25. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:55, 12 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redeye, The Photography Network[edit]

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

There's a lack of substantial 3rd party coverage of the organization. Basic information like how big it is can't be sourced independently. Most sources are just passing mentions. I think the bjp-online.com blog is the best source, and helps, but by itself, it doesn't seem sufficient. Rob (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization is already getting over fifty thousand quid a year from the Arts Council, which is even publicly talking about the possibility of giving it more. The Arts Council and similar organizations are not known for their largesse towards photography in Britain (outside London's "Photographers' Gallery", anyway); indeed, the Arts Council even cut all funding to another organization whose long-term work would only weeks later be recognized by UNESCO. The public that directly or indirectly finances the Arts Council may like encyclopedic information on the organizations that the Arts Council benefits. ¶ So much for the "public service" rationale for retaining this article. Yes, the article certainly makes unsourced assertions, and these assertions should eventually be either sourced or cut; but it also says enough that is already sourced, and shows enough promise, to merit retention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must say, though, this was and probably still is a crap article. It said that an event Redeye held was praised by Hodgson; it was addressed by Hodgson (who, yes, can be inferred to have praised it). Somebody of no particular obvious importance was said to have called its event "the must attend event of the photographic year" (Really? Ahead of Arles?); er no he didn't, he called it "one of the must attend events of the photographic year". Ah well, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and "WP:CIR" isn't even a guideline, it's a mere essay. ¶ Well, crap article or no, some of it is sourced properly, and Joe Taxpayer may like to know where fifty thousand quid went. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Small organization (only 7,000 members) and notability isn't established by what's in the article today. PK T(alk) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2011 Lake Champlain and Richelieu River Floods. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation LOTUS[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The operation is in response to the worst flooding in decades in Southern Quebec. While we don't currently have an article on the flooding itself, the Fr wiki's amply demonstrate the notability. Circéus (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no reason for this article to exist, if there's no article on the flood itself. So either rename this article to become the flood article, and rebuild, or get rid of it. Ideally the flood article should also cover New York and Vermont on the shores of Lake Champlain in addition to Quebec and the Richelieu River. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have created a brief and rough translation of the 2011 Lake Champlain and Richelieu River Floods article from the french wikipedia. That article should be improved and expanded and the content of Operation LOTUS should be merged into it. And the page should then be replaced with a redirect to the corresponding section of that article. - Meaning of Lif (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2011 Lake Champlain and Richelieu River Floods without prejudice to recreation at a later date if enough infomation and reliable sources can be found to write a viable article. Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Meaning of Lif ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 12 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Arias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

New role since last AfD (deleted as not notable). Prod removed without comment. Has one potentially notable role in an upcoming production. Fails WP:ENT. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Still too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 2 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 02:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly, the creator just copied all his roles from IMDb, and I didn't get any reliable hits on Yahoo except for Twitter page and mirror websites. I received the same results when I searched Google except for a fansite and YouTube video of him. There isn't enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I searched a database of newspaper and magazine articles, but all I could find were brief passing mentions that he was in Kickin' It, no significant coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Klein[edit]

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

Non-notable surgeon. The article does have references but they're about projects the surgeon is affiliated with, not the surgeon himself. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 02:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of Michael Klein and his contributions

Worldwide medical care is a pressing concern. Oral health offers clues about overall health, and relevant to Michael Klein's contributions, the problems in one's mouth can affect the rest of the body. In the United States baby boomers are at the age that they are likely to have at least one tooth removed. What are they going to do about it? In the 90's when Dr. Klein started his work, a person would go to his dentist, and the dentist would pull his tooth, offer a denture, or possibly recommend that he go to a specialist for an implant. All these choices were less than optimum. Implants are superior to dentures in terms of aesthetics, comfort, and durability. Being toothless or wearing ill-fitting dentures can lead in many cases to self-consciousness,embarrassment, and even depression. However, a dentist was disinclined to recommend an implant because it meant referring his patient out, and losing the lucrative fee of dentures. In addition, if he did refer out, the economic deal was that the specialist would send the patient back for a crown. This was a nightmare for the dentist because at that time over 95% of implants would connect to the bone, but 50% of these were placed in away that made it exceedingly difficult to align the crown properly. This meant a lot of back and forth with the lab, and at times the dentist looked like he had failed when in fact the problem was caused by the specialist's placement of the implant. And what patient is going to believe that the problem lies with the specialist and not his general dentist? Dr. Klein saw that their was a huge market in the States of people reaching the age that they could benefit from implants. And marketers will tell you that this group is an entitled and huge segment. Dr. Klein's invention did two critical things: 1) Now not only are over 95% of implants connected to the bone, but over 95% can be placed properly when using Dr. Klein's invention. 2) The general dentist can now perform these surgeries in most cases. And the specialist has a tool to assure that he is placing the implants optimally and avoiding doing injury.

The benefit to the U.S. health system is enormous. While Dr. Klein was developing his system, other companies were trying to do the same. However, only Dr. Klein came up with a simple system that made it practical and affordable for the general dentist to do the surgery effectively. This system is critical given the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. An inventor of a system that can benefit the health of millions and save billions of dollars for Americans is worthy of an article in Wikipedia.

Please also note that the article on Dr. Klein is written in a subdued tone and in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on writing about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looslion (talk • contribs) 9 June 2011

Comment - Promotional and celebratory in tone. There may be an article here based upon his role as an inventor, but there needs to be third-party sourcing explaining the importance of the cited patents. A list of patents doesn't "qualify" a subject as notable any more than a list of books written does... If that technology has been employed in a meaningful way, and that contribution is recognized in a substantial and verifiable source, then things change. Further, the "Dr." needs to be lost immediately from the title in the event this challenge closes as a "Keep." I'm not willing to advise "Deletion" at this point, because this might be a Keep-and-Fix deal. But there needs to be some serious work done here to demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to removing the "Dr." from the heading. I used the "Dr." to distinguish him from the other Michael Kleins that are listed in Wikipedia. I still maintain that the article is subdued, I did not use any adjectives and stayed in a descriptive mode. The patents were used to create a commercially viable surgical implant template. As noted in the article the company was bought by BioHorizons Inc. This video shows the product that was created by Dr. Klein's patents. This video is a promotional piece, but I think you can see that the general dentist trained in this system can gain expertise to do implant surgery reliably and responsibly. And if you read up on the history of dental implants and what can go wrong, this is a big deal. Looslion (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]
Here is a testimonial from a general dentist who used the system. Technology Helps an “Amateur” Place Implants by Joseph Whitehouse,DDS. Looslion (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]
Delete I'm not finding the evidence that he is a leader in the field. Google Scholar returns only two or three hits (one patent and a couple of journal articles), and they are not widely cited; this one got the most citations (38). The number of times an article is cited is one way to judge the person's importance in the field. PubMed finds mostly articles by a German dentist of the same name. Google hits are mostly self-referential. Google News finds nothing. He may very well have helped the field of dentistry, but the required independent coverage of his contributions isn't there as far as I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I hope to have info in a few days which will address your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.151.70 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to promotional/advertisement style. He's mentioned in a Los Angeles article here, other than that zero notable results on Yahoo and Google. Also, responding to above: We don't have time to wait for your possible information, anything that we've already found is enough to delete the article. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.I.P.R.I.P. Warm Up[edit]

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

Half life to mod with no indication of notability. Only reference given is to the games own website. Google searches do not find anything significant noq (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:19, 2 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 02:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though About.com can sometimes be used there's still nowhere near enough significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 12:42, 9 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ours (Fahrenheit album)[edit]

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

An unreferenced and orphaned page superseded by Two-Sided Fahrenheit. This page was created in July 2007 in anticipation of the release of Taiwanese boy band Fahrenheit (Taiwanese band)'s second album later in the year. The majority of the information are based on speculations with an incorrect track listing and title. Since the album's release in January 2008, a referenced and non-orphaned page has superseded it. It has not been updated since January 2008 except for one minor spelling and two bot edits. Michaela den (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:53, 2 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 02:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculative, superseded article that fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 20:27, 13 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) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Knop[edit]

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

A junior athlete who doesn't (yet) meet either the sport-specific notability criteria (WP:NCYC) or the General Notability Guideline - a Google search doesn't bring up non-routine coverage (mostly matches in result listings which doesn't confer notability) and a news and books search brings up nothing. Delete without prejudice of recreation if he goes on to meet the standard criteria. Severo^TC 08:36, 2 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 02:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for many reasons, from poorly written (frequent typos) to the fact that he's a minor athlete. If there is a newspaper with information on him, sure. But for now, it's too trivial. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:47, 9 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} 17:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Houston[edit]

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

Non-notable singer; article created by a representative of her record label (which doesn't have an article on here). Appears to have no relation to a transgender singer of the same name that had an alleged affair with Matt Lauer. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator has been indef-blocked for having a promotional username. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography as well as lack of references. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This review in edgeboston most closely resembles coverage of a music career in a reliable source, whereas the sources in the article that variously claim her to be Matt Lauer's interest, Whitney's sister, or neither are not WP:RS. Disregarding the gossip and one TV appearance as a singer, I don't think what is here is enough to show notability via WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paul the octopus. Any information about the secondary octopus that is relevant to the article on the primary octopus can be merged in. And there's a sentence I never thought I'd type. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul II (octopus)[edit]

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

As if this wasn’t clear; firstly, to imply that someone would mistake the Pope for an octopus is extremely offensive; secondly, IF this is even the same octopus (as they die after months in captivity) this page is depending on speculation alone to justify itself. There was a or several octopi known as Paul. This may be one or some of them. The Paul the octopus article is fine and this page can be summed up as “One of Paul's successors might predict the outcomes of Euro 2012 matches.” I added that and it was rightfully removed as speculation. Paul II OCTOPUS should be removed. Any further Paul the octopus sightings can be added to the main article as they live and die. No offense towards sea life intended, octopi are intelligent and fascinating creatures. This article looks like it has sources but all the stories that aren’t about the original Paul may not even be about the same animal due to poor research done by the news organizations. Compassion is in fashion (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I read a book once about a man who mistook his wife for a hat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular octopus has done nothing notable - it hasn't done any "predictions" like its predecessor did, I see no reason why this octopus is any more notable than any of the others currently in captivity or in the wild. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not based on number of predictions, but coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is no question that this meets WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benjiboi. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wonder if I would be justified in transposing the WP:BLP1E policy to living animals? doomgaze (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Paul the Octopus. In the football world these octopii are almost as significant as the Pope (no disrespect intended) but clearly not from a religious angle, it's more about entertainment. There is no harm in having an article about Paul II (octopus) as long as it meets WP:GNG which it does (the media coverage, including television coverage for this octopus is well over the top, but such is entertainment). None of the content overlaps with the Pope or can be confused with the Pope. If it did then there would be a problem. [I can't imagine stacks of smoke coming out of the aquarium when an octopus dies. Far too much effort. And could you imagine the election of a new octopus. The effort required to get octopii to vote for a new successor.] I think that the Vatican is safe from conflicting octopii. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paul the Octopus. Silly as this is, it did get quite a bit of coverage in the more frivolous pages of reputable news sources (Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Daily Telegraph). No doubt it wouldn't have without the original Paul the Octopus so surely we should merge II into I? Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WP:GNG suggests that one person/animal would be less notable if their fame piggy-backed on another person's fame. Isn't this how articles like K-Fed start? It only matters that the reliable sources are giving adequate weight to the new subject. Also, there is content specific to Paul II in the article that wouldn't fit well merged into Paul the Octopus, such as where Paul II was captured. Spa c explosion ^[talk] 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Paul the Octopus - this is an unnecessary content fork. --Anthem 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [32]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paul the Octopus. While this particular Octopus has done nothing notable himself, the fact he was caught and intended to be trained as Paul's successor is relevant information to Paul the Octopus. While there is no need to have a separate article, there is no need to fully delete the information either. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Paul the Octopus. Unnecessary content fork, and no need for a redirect. Nageh (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. If this octopus becomes notable for something other than being descended from a notable octopus, then in might warrant an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in the least. PK T(alk) 20:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23:59 hours[edit]

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

Contested prod. A "No references" tag was removed when references of dubious relevance were added. My own Google search turned up this, which suggests that we're looking at spam for an upcoming B-movie. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:N. The article doesn't offer much aside from some advertised links, sources that aren't major, and legends about death. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Hawkeye7. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense article, neologism. Keb25 (talk) 02:00, 11 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) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chommo[edit]

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

Video game location that is almost entirely sourced to Wikia and other fan-published Wikis, other than a brief mention about the english translation of the name. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly redirect to the main EarthBound article then. GVnayR (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EarthBound - seems a plausible search term, no notability. --Anthem 09:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [33]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional location does not meet the general notability guideline and it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Only one reliable source is provided to back up a statement, which does not suggest that the rest of the content is justified with unreliable sources. With a search engine test, around 88% of the results are for Chommo in other instances no related to the Earthbound video game, so I believe that a redirect is not warranted. Jfgslo (talk) 16:31, 14 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) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summers (EarthBound)[edit]

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

Video game location that is entirely sourced to Wikia and other fan-published Wikis. No sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the most logical way to solve this dilemma would be to redirect this article into the main EarthBound article. GVnayR (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline. Redirecting would be pointless because of the "(EarthBound)" part of the name. --Anthem 09:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [34]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional town does not meet the general notability guideline and an article about it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The material fails verifiability because it relies on unreliable sources. Due to the disambiguation in the article title, it is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not needed. Jfgslo (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; no evidence of real-world notability. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foggyland[edit]

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

Video game location that is entirely sourced to Wikia and other fan-published Wikis. No sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The considerate thing to do then would be to redirect this article into the main EarthBound article. GVnayR (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fictional nation that does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. All content fails verifiability since it uses unreliable sources. While the article title is simple and would justify a redirect, the term Foggyland is not used only for the fictional location of a video game (around 88% of results with a search engine test are not related to Earthbound), so a redirect is not justified in my opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:19, 14 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) 01:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winters (EarthBound)[edit]

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

Video game location that is entirely sourced to Wikia and other fan-published Wikis. No sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main EarthBound article. GVnayR (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable fictional location from a video game. As a subject, it does not meet the general notability guideline and it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The content in the article is referenced with an unreliable source, so it fails verifiability. Given the disambiguation in the article title, it is not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not necessary. Jfgslo (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Facebook. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 03:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook users[edit]

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

Can all easily be merged to Facebook, nothing really special here CTJF83 01:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — to Facebook per nom. Baseball Watcher 02:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Facebook. The main Facebook page already states what amount of users it has, why not just add whatever is here over there, simple. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - this is obviously not a separate subject in its own right. Whether this is new material that can or should be integrated, or it is redundant, irrelevant, or poor material that has no use, should be left to the denizens of the Facebook article. We can decide here in this discussion whether or not to keep this article, but we cannot force editors of the main Facebook article to accept any leftover material. The best way to handle this might be a redirect, which would let non-admin editors see the content and decide what if anything to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:55, 13 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma[edit]

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

Originally listed at CAT:SD, but I'm not sure it qualifies under any of the criteria. Listing here just in case, for lack of notability. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is about a non-notable martial art. There are no independent sources about this art and Richard Burgess claims to be the founder/successor of this art--which seems to conflict with the claim of being thousands of years old. The organization claims to have been a secret society of monks from around the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this article has no supporting evidence. Papaursa (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article nor its characters have any notability. It is in the nature of blatant advertisement. There is no independent references avaialble. It seems to have been created by a single purpose user who may have conflict of Interest. I would have prefered speedy delete, which I had originally recommended.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't certain it qualified as an "organization" under A7, and I wanted to make sure. I guess G11 would have been sufficient, now that I think about it. Doesn't look like it'll be around for much longer, though, so all's well that ends well. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No problem. --Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like just another bullshido mill. Fails the GNG and WP:ORG or CORP. Ravenswing 14:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I found sounds like bullshido to me. No reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense hoax article. Keb25 (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is an ancient philosophy that is well documented. There are many temples that will educate you on it. Rishi Burgess is an instructor of C.O.R.E. as the article points out. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma can even be found discussed on recent news sites. WBMF News of Myrtle Beach. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma also recieved the "Most Innovative Program of the Year Award" that will be shared here soon. We will post the scripture here as well to help you understand what you are speaking about before requesting a deletion. Rishi Burgess is a well known Sramana Philosopher who has studied in many Buddhist temples and is the owner of the Sramana School of Thought. We will have others come add to the site as soon as possible. Thank you for your concern. =) Namaste — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC) To help you understand the philosophy read on Ahimsa. (Non Violence) You may also like to compare with Ajivika and Gandhara philosophy. Rishi burgess gives seminars at temples in the U.S. often if you would like to learn more about this practice in person. He is is a teacher of the Jhana's and meditation practice. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is the practice of "Mind". C.O.R.E. is the techniques "Body". Sramanic practice is the "Spirit". "Mind, Body, Spirit". You can buy the book called "The Sramanic Warrior". We will add the ISBN if needed. In short Virodhi Himsa Adhayatma is well documented and not some Bullshido as the disrespectful comment claims above. Rishi Burgess is the founder of the Association not the practice. If you read the article you will notice that as well. There is nothing secret about Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is not martial arts it is protective arts. There is nothing militant "martial" about Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is also used in the Bando monk system. Well known fighter and World Champion Joe Lewis has confirmed this in a recent email with Rishi Burgess. We will be happy to forward this information to Wikipedia to help solve this misinformed view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I have been doing some research on this subject and will be going through my notes and posting what I can as I can. Just a couple of things really quick. I have confirmed a news website calendar of an event at http://myfoxaustin.eviesays.com/event/iid/4226364/name/Free-Safe-Kids-Seminar.html. I also found this website which does give more information about Virodhi Himsa http://www.jainworld.com/phil/ahimsa/cohimsa.htm. The Dr. who wrote this last webpage has information about himself at this link http://www.jainworld.com/society/speaksch/vsangave.htm. I hope this helps to verify that this is a legitimate and verifiable philosophy. It is apparent to me that the author of this page is just getting started with building it and should be given the common respect of allowing him time to build it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sges774 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD HEAD OF FAMILY SOKESHIP COUNCIL

6035 Ft. Caroline Rd. Unit 22, Jacksonville, FL. 32277

Tel. (904) 745-6019/ Fax (904) 744-4625 Website address: www.WHFSC.com [email protected] You have been inducted under this years’ 2011 nomination category of: 2011 MOST INNOVATIVE TRAINING PROGRAM OF THE YR - VIRODHI HIMSA ADHYATMA - S.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Just to clear up this Idea of promoting onself, the name Rishi Burgess is removed. Rishi Burgess is successful already and he did not write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Virodhi Himdsa adhyatma is not all document!!. Please check Google Book Search. Not one single entry!.

The Jain concept of Virodhi himsa i.e. self-defence has nothing to do with this so called Virodhi Himdsa adhyatma. Virodhi himsa is just one of the types of violence that a layman can indulge in and that too only in rarest of rare cases. Hence this is not a philosophical system as wrongly pitched.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have my serious doubt that JainPlanetism and Sges774 are same account and created to give an illusion of support. I have added tags of suspected sockpuppets.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of opinion. I will continue linking information that can be verified as you now see. This is not the place for religious debate or false views. The Jain religion lost the purvas who are you to know what is what? Non-Violence Practice is older than Jain. Even Buddha was a warrior. Mahavira was also a warrior. In what world do you protect yourself without thought? Any combat expert will tell you how knowing ones self is important to protective violence. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is the correct way to explain the practice. If you injure, you suffer the kamma. There is thought involved and one must know their own limitations. Do you claim knowledge of the ancient past? You will find many doctors and scholars will verify supporting information on Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma. Good luck with your claims. You must have an issue with Rishi Burgess. You now even claim that I made another account. If you have an issue with Rishi take it up with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.219.85 (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC) The concept of "Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma" as you stated[reply]

     is important in the Bando Monk System.
     It is a non-violent system of self-defense.
     Defender will use non-lethal strikes or
     techniques, so that the aggressor or attacker 
     is not seriously harmed.
     Conceptually, it sounds great. But, in reality,
     it is extremely difficult to learn and execute
     under pressure. ~Dr. Maung Gyi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.219.85 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry V. I believe we have now proven that Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma should be here to stay. Rishi Burgess is no longer listed in the article. It will not change the fact that he is founder of the Association but as you must be aware we wish to keep the peace. I am happy that "Indian Chronicles" now has helped prove that Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma has a use in the Jain religion. Lary V we would be happy change things around as you see fit. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma is well known and there is no need to delete this philosophy. I can have many Buddhist, Jain, and Sramanas sign a petition. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma was also a known philosophy to the Bactrians. Doctors can verify its use of protective arts as part of its philosophy. Please do not let "Indian Chronicles" make this a religious debate. To the Sramana way of life it is an important part of our culture and a philosdophy. After further research on this matter we believe that "Indian Chronicles" has an outside contact to Rishi Burgess. This would explain your being contacted in regards to this article. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma was also instructed inside Charlotte Mecklenburg School systems and at Central Piedmont College as an elective course. Students recieved credits for it. We will continue to build up this article to help educate people on the facts. Also Sges774 has offered to help now and if you would like her contact information I can forward it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three points.

The resolution of this discussion is not in my hands, and I will not withdraw the deletion nomination.
I see no reason to assume bad faith on the part of Indian Chronicles, as you seem to.
Note that recruiting a personal contact to contribute to an AfD discussion—which you just implicated yourself in doing—is a violation of the sock puppetry policy and is grounds for an indefinite block. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JainPlanetism.

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting and knowing are two different things. It was her that asked me to check the article or I would have not known. As for the article deletion it does not hold much water. Virodhi Himsa Adhyatma will not just be listed on Wikipedia soon. As a college course you can guess it has cited material. As much as I enjoy Wikipedia many college professors would not allow a student to cite Wikipedia anyway. I do see this a religious motivated as there is only one view being given. The Jain view. The Jain view can also be argued. I trust I am leaving this in good hands. If it is deleted it will become a much larger topic is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JainPlanetism (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clear something up. I am not Jain Planetism and was not "recruited" by him. I contacted him to let him know that the article was up for deletion. I then offered information here and on the article to help people find information that verifies this philosophy and save an article I think should be on wiki from being deleted. It is nice to know that new information is monitored and needs to be verified. I decided to share information to support this article and I am being treated poorly for it. Look at the information that is presented and not for some conspiracy theory. Throwing out accusations of sockpuppetry is not going to deter from what the point of this is, to decide if this article has verifiable information. Yes it does.--Sges774 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not mean for the sockpuppet business to distract from the AfD discussion, and I apologize for bringing it up here. Larry V (talk | email) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jainplanetism/Sges774, unfortunately your arguments are not helping your case. The question of deletion of this article has nothing to do with whether Mahavira or Buddha was a warrior or not. It has nothing to do with religious debates or Jain view. The Jian concept is Virodhi himsa and not Virodhi himsa Adhayatma. Do not put words in my mouth and do not do selective reading. This will not help your cause by assuming bad faith. Inspite of so much debates, you have not been able to bring out one single reference or reliable source. That is because it does not exist. Your references to others being contacted by someone and you getting signature does not inspire confidence and implies that some organisation is behind it. I am sure that Rishi is doing a good job and is propagating a good philosophy. Good luck to him and his students. But please understand that wikipedia runs according to certain rules. This is what makes it a great site and ensures its reliability. Blatant advertisement cannot be allowed here. Maybe after sometime when VHA gains some notability and there are good valid independent references and reliable sources around you can come back to create an article. Till then please respect the wikipedai rules.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drillinginfo[edit]

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

Seems perhaps not notable. I also have a concern with a possible conflict of interest with relatively recent edits. Raymie (t • c) 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Looking given external links, it seems that this company meets notability criteria. However, the article needs a rewriting due to WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 27 May 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, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews shows no extensive indepth coverage, most of the hits come from one newspaper. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this fails the GNG and WP:CORP. That the company might have attracted some modest notice in industry journals is all very well and good, but to quote WP:CORP, "[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is no evidence of any such source. Ravenswing 14:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goldin+Senneby. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Senneby[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Ridernyc (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Goldin+Senneby. The article is actually sourced with articles in a major Swedish newspaper, the same ones I just found and mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldin+Senneby, but these articles are all about the collaboration. It is quite possible that more sources can be found about Senneby specifically. In that case the article can be split into its own page again.--Hegvald (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted by Hegvald. PK T(alk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turney Stevens[edit]

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

May possibly fail WP:N. Original article was practically a resume before cutting down to a single point per discussion at relevant noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, subject does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some news stories about him and re-expanded the article based on them. Most of them are just local newspaper items that don't really speak to his notability, but I think the BusinessWeek piece and the Ethisphere award are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein, it looks like he meets WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:53, 31 May 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) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Business week is a good enough source, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 9 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) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmi i Rrugës[edit]

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

This band article does not appear to cover a notable band. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the sources referenced in the article insufficient? For a Kosovo-Albanian group to be described in The New York Times as "star local rappers" and to get coverage in an English-language encyclopedia from an academic publisher seems pretty notable to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT devotes only 2 sentences to them.

And while the encyclopedia is listed as a ref -- please let us know what it says about the band. If anything. Since you are puzzled as to how it is not sufficient, it would be helpful to know from you what it says.

In short, it is not clear to me that 2 sentences is the sort of "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources that satisfies our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The line for which the encyclopedia is cited, "...coined the term Albanian Rap, to describe this merger of Rap music with original Albanian-themed lyrical contents", sounds like a joke. I find it hard to believe that a genuinely notable encyclopedia would seriously assert that rap written by Albanians is a different genre of music than rap written by anyone else. And putting the words "Albanian" and "rap" next to each other to describe rap written by Albanians is hardly "coining a term". That's like saying you coined the term "black dog" to describe dogs with black fur.

More importantly, all the article's claims of notability for the group, e.g. "Ritmi i Rrugës have released a great number of hit singles", are not only unreferenced(save the aforementioned line, but again, I highly doubt that encyclopedia actually says that), they are suspiciously vague. If they have so many hit singles, why doesn't the article name even one? --Martin IIIa (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I empathize about the difficulty of finding reliable sources, there are no waivers to WP:V. Ravenswing 14:02, 10 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. Courcelles 18:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie William "Billy" Sunday[edit]

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

According to a quote in a story on the Department of Defense website [35], the character Leslie William "Billy" Sunday (the character played by Robert DeNiro in the film Men of Honor) was not a real person, but a composite character based on three different people. I boldly redirected the article to the film article back in 2009, but it has been resurrected. Instead of just redirecting, I thought it better to bring it here. The article as it stands has a few inconsistencies; for example,if you accept the assertions that he was forced to retire in 1966 AND he was born in 1901.... well, you can do the maths. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional character. Even if he wasn't, his notability is based entirely on his portrayal in a film, unlike Brashear himself, whose notability is based on his achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a character in the film, the redirect is best. The character is not independently notable, but is part of the film. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Men of Honor as it seems like a viable search term even if the bloke isn't real, either that or delete. Anotherclown (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As to redirects, would anyone really enter "Leslie William "Billy" Sunday" as a search term?! Billy Sunday maybe. Leslie Sunday possibly. But the whole thing? Never. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a real person and not a viable search term. — chro • man • cer 20:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there's content worth reusing in the article on the movie, else delete. I note that the hatnote at Billy Sunday already points to the film article, hence agree that a search term on the full name is unlikely. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence that this fictional character meets the general notability guideline. The article appears to be a plot-only description of a fictional work disguised as the biography of a supposedly real person. Even treating the subject as a real person, there are no reliable third-party sources to presume that it meets the notability criteria for people. The content in the article fails verifiability since there are zero sources to backup the claims there, so all content is original research, nothing that deserves to be merged. I do not believe that the article title is a viable search term so I don't think that a redirect is warranted. Jfgslo (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits on Yahoo! and Google except for some Yahoo! Answers entries questioning whether this person was real. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi International Women's Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hanoi International Women's Club

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and only directory listings in google. gbooks reveals some one line mentions. [36]. claims of being "it is one of the biggest charitable women's organisations in Southeast Asia," don't seem backed up by multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are news stories about the group by the Vietnam News Agency here and here. VNA is Vietnam's main news service. Kauffner (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

both articles are tiny mentions, nothing in depth about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 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) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. PK T(alk) 20:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 03:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. 4[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL--there are no details. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Discussed at WT:VG#E3 Reminder!, and covered in its series article. « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Sergecross73. Needs more work and a different article name. « ₣M₣ » 03:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've started a new topic on the discussion page about what a better name could be. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- BusSDriver (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been officially announced, and reliable sources are reporting on it. Much like Project Cafe after it was offically announced in April, there will be plenty of reliably-sourced speculation on it as well (if there isn't already). Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google search show that there has been an "Iwata Asks" on that shows more details. Info on it here. Info is out there, it just hasn't been added to the article yet... Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — Per Sergecross73. Baseball Watcher 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73's work. BTW, BusSDriver, in the future, it would help to give a reason. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Super Smash Bros. (Wii U and 3DS) or something. --Dorsal Axe 14:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important upcoming title with info out about it already.AerobicFox (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. High profile release in a very important and best selling series. New information should come fairly fast too.--Hadomaru (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources that could be used for the article. A sequel has been talked about for years, and the subject is notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't exist. It doesn't have a name. Sure the 3DS is out, but if they're planning a joint Wii U/3DS release, well the Wii U is a prototype that won't be out for a year; so this nameless game that isn't even being developed at this time won't be out before the Wii U launches, so to begin it this year and rush it might give it a 2012 release. But that's speculative and I'm trailing off. My point is keeping an article for the game at this stage is a stupid idea, because there's no game to cover. Just a couple of quotes about what could appear in a game that will probably happen, but at the moment, isn't. Everything in the article is better suited to redirect to an appropriate section of the Super Smash Bros. series' article. Digitelle (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence is not a criteria for whether or not it should have an article. (See Chrono Break, for example. Not only does it have an article, but it has been qualified a good article..) What matters is that it is getting coverage from reliable, third party sources. This game has been confirmed to be developed straight from Nintendo, and, the last time I checked, has coverage from 3+ separate reliable sources as well. Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER, plenty of room within the series article to cover the future title until a name is known and more details besides just its announcement are available. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalis in Belgium[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. whilst the small number of Nepalese (2000 in a total Belgian population of 11 million) is not a reason alone to delete. there is no evidence of significant coverage of this migrant group. a few minor cultural events do not cut it. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 25 May 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 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Demographics of Belgium. Neutrality^talk 04:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please choose one. can't have both. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing the fate of the article, not registering a one-way-or-another vote. It's quite appropriate to suggest two separate ways of resolving this. That being said, this is a poorly written article - for an article created in 2010 to contain such a sentence as "The number of Nepalis claiming to be Maoists fleeing the counter-insurgency drive and seeking political asylum in Belgium has soared from 270 two years ago to more than 500 in 2002" is bizarre, the more so in that said insurgency won the civil war six years ago. The article was created by User:DaTraveller, whose Wikipedia activity seems focused around creating "diaspora" articles, and who doesn't seem to have been notified of this AfD, which is improper. (I've just now notified DaTraveller, and suggest that an admin who might be otherwise inclined to close this hold it open for a full week after the most recent relisting to give him a chance to respond.) Nonetheless, I'm with Neutrality, and either a Delete or redirect would work for me. Ravenswing 13:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I'm sorry I didn't reply. I was actually aware about this nomination before I left overseas and I was going to ask questions about this nomination. Anyways now that I'm back, I made few adjustments to the article. I fixed the source link for the "Migration History" section and i also removed the "citation needed" tag as the information for the entire section is from the second source link. If there is anything you guys would like to tell me please let me know. DaTraveller (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate part of a series. Content is better placed here than in demographics of Belgium, where it would be disproportionate. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a legitimate ground upon which to keep; that way leads indiscriminate nonsense such as Nepalis in Andorra, Nepalis in Swaziland or Nepalis in San Marino, on the specious premise that we have to have "complete" series articles whether or not there is verifiable content or whether or not there is any population of any real significance. For instance, I'm curious as to whether you have found any reliable sources discussing, in significant detail, the collective actions of Nepalis in Belgium, any more than the rest of us have. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 02:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three sources are listed in the article. One is a dead link. Another is a Christian Missionaries or some charitable trust website. The third source is a reliable source that focuses purely on how asylum seekers have gone up to Belgium from Nepal. One reliable source, notability of a list does not make. Request delete as soon as convenient. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3-2-1 Penguins! episodes[edit]

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

Article originally created with title Episode 1- haha. I moved it to the current title. When I went back today to clean up the formatting, I discovered that the list is unreliable per the episode listing at IMDB. Listing may be correct for Qubo channel, but that wasn't the primary broadcast or creator's sequence and is insignificant for WP purposes. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and inaccurate list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Unsourced and seems spammy at the end with "Watch 3-2-1 penguins on Qubo channel 5:00 p.m" Baseball Watcher 02:57, 9 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.

^ http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=355
^ http://www.mediabiz.com/thebridge/?release_id=154#1052
^ http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/04/07/41240/top-station-groups-stay-the-course
^ name="highbeam.com">Heavenly success: TV's largest religious network continues to expand around the world, while adding shows aimed at reaching a much wider audience. (30th Anniversary). - Multichannel News | HighBeam Research - FREE trial. Highbeam.com (2003-05-26). Retrieved on 2010-11-11.
^ http://www.tbnnetworks.org/downloads/TBN_Networks_info.pdf
^ http://www.tbn.org/announcements/tbn-s-ptc-seal-of-approval-points-the-way-for-parents

[1] ttp://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=355

[2] ttp://www.mediabiz.com/thebridge/?release_id=154#1052

[3] ttp://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/04/07/41240/top-station-groups-stay-the-course

[4] ="highbeam.com">Heavenly success: TV's largest religious network continues to expand around the world, while adding shows aimed at reaching a much wider audience. (30th Anniversary). - Multichannel News | HighBeam Research - FREE trial. Highbeam.com (2003-05-26). Retrieved on 2010-11-11.

[5] ttp://www.tbnnetworks.org/downloads/TBN_Networks_info.pdf

[6] ttp://www.tbn.org/announcements/tbn-s-ptc-seal-of-approval-points-the-way-for-parents

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]