Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 29

< 28 June	30 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. extransit (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wenatchee Valley Regal Cinemas 14

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

Non-notable proposed building. ttonyb (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The reference in the article states that the theater is "on the drawing board." Even once built, I don't see why the theater needs its own article; it can instead be combined with the Wenatchee Valley Mall article. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as never-will-be-notable. What's the explanation, that there wasn't any room in the Wenatchee Valley Mall for this? They're planning to build a big movie theater there? Let me know when it opens, but not in a separate article then either. Mandsford 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against future inclusion in the Wenatchee Valley Mall article, but there's simply no reason to leave a redirect behind. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wenatchee Valley Mall.--Pink Bull 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? The mall article already mentions that a theatre will be built, which is pretty much all that the references confirm. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, there appears to be little to merge. The source used in the theater article appears to be a third-party source and the source used in the mall article appeared to be a primary source. I replaced the source at the mall article with the source from theater article.[1]. I guess the only thing left to discuss is whether Wenatchee Valley Regal Cinemas 14 should redirect to Wenatchee Valley Mall. I don't have a strong opinion either way. If the article is deleted, someone searching for information on the theater, will most likely find the information in the "results" of the search. On the hand, creating a redirect does not appear to be a big deal either.--Pink Bull 07:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill movie theater which doesn't merit an article now and won't when it opens. I don't think a redirect is called for, since the theater hasn't even opened yet. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I could have also easily closed as no consensus, but I felt the arguments for retention outweighed the other arguments in this case. –MuZemike 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superhuman strength

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

Proxy nomination for IP; stated rationale: "definitional, low content, 3 years after inconclusive deletion [discussion] and touted improvement has not come."

Neutral as proxy nom. –xeno^talk 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction per nom of the original AfD. Seems like that would be the most reasonable spot for it. Mauler90 _talk 23:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the original reasons, plus it got a 3 year repreive to be built into something and it DID NOT DO SO. Is still just a little OR stub-essay. If someone really wants to write about this concept, they should find the right forum for that and do so. WP is not for blog essays (and this is not even at that level). --"The IP" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 4:24 pm, Today (UTC−7)
- Two things: There is no deadline. And you're part of the problem if you also didn't put any effort into trying to turn it into something during those three years. If no-one has edited something that one wants edited, the right course of action here at Wikipedia is to boldly do it onesself, not to complain that somebody else isn't doing it. Writing the encyclopaedia isn't Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are going to be ample references to both the real world phenom of superhuman strength (moms pulling cars off babies), and the relevance in fiction of having characters with truly superhuman strength. Its true, this article sucks, and if there wasnt a core idea that COULD be developed, id say delete. but i think this is a valid article on 2 parallel ideas. I bet we find refs extolling the importance of such figures in our collective imagination, and the dangers of believing in such stuff too literally, from notable writers. i may actually try to help it grow.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, followup: 3.8K hits in google scholar for "superhuman strength" string. 38K for the same in google books. gsearch: [2] [3] [4] and this I think we can safely use this plethora to create an article beyond a dictionary definition.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, "moms pulling cars off babies" is covered in hysterical strength. –xeno^talk 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article you refer to has nearly zero reliable sources beyond one use of the phrase "hysterical strength" which acknowledges its not recognized medically. many links are not found. If there is actual sourcing to be found for this phrase, great, link to it from here (i havent attempted yet to research hysterical strength). but im not sure THAT article should exist (if not, then IT needs to be merged with superhuman strength), and superhuman may be a more common phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ants have proportionally superhuman strength, and that term is used to describe ant strength; chimpanzees have superhuman strength; elephants have superhuman strength. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then we just define the use here as "fictional or real examples of people showing strength beyond what is normally possible for humans"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to an article about a list of super powers. What would that be? Oh - List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction. I like that idea. dogman15 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UncleG and Mercurywoodrose's followup. And even if the article continued being a stub for some more years, an improvable stub is still better than a nonexistent article. It's not malicious or wrong info anyway, so it's hurting noone. --Waldir ^talk 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Superhuman (disambiguation). It looks like we're heading to a no consensus on this, and I can see where this might be useful as a disambiguation page of its own-- it kind of looks like one now. After the last nomination, which closed with the advice "rewrite or improve", this was the so-called improvement. What can we learn from this one? It's "employed in fiction", okay, yeah, not real. It means "stronger than humanly possible", duh. Examples of fiction can be found in "ancient mythologies and religions... novels, comic books, television, films, and video games". Uh-huh. It's "used by several characters in fantasy and sci-fi" explained as science or magic, and a "plethora of comic book superheroes and supervillains usually have a degree of super strength", the leval "can vary greatly", okay, you've still got ten more minutes... Frankly, I would rather have had the old version [5] rather than this. If kept, then, for God's sake, "rewrite or improve". Mandsford 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional concept. No objection to an editorial merge discussion, but there's simply no compelling reason to delete it. It clearly can be sourced: Google News archive, Books, Scholar. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment inclined to keep, but should the concept be treated differently from other super powers? I can see arguments each way. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concept. Per WP:NODEADLINE, the appalling state of the article really isn't a justification to delete. Claritas § 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction#Superhuman strength. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Claritas. There seems to be a movement to delete "concept" articles here at WP. This article can be easily sourced (and should have been before nomination), it is an obviously notable meme in fiction, the nomination has not made a compelling argument to delete, and there is no deadline to fix such articles. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that the concept article got deleted nearly three years ago, back in September 2007 [6]. When one person rewrites something beyond recognition, it's far worse than proposing to the community that it should be deleted. The nominator is under no obligation to source an article, particularly if it's a piece of crap. Mandsford 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant myself, but when i see an article poorly sourced and poorly written, with a tendency towards trivial content, i want to scrape it back to a stub and build it back slowly, from a core of a clearly understood concept. if we cannot agree on a good core for this article, i can really see the reason for deletion. i just think we CAN come up with a decent core definition for this article. maybe im wrong. I tend to respect Mandsfords thoughts at AFD, so im seriously considering them here. of course i could live with a redirect to superhuman. doesnt take a superhuman leap of logic to get that that is one valid outcome.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but possibly redirect as discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opting to !vote instead of close. I have to agree with Uncle G on this one. The concept itself is notable but the article does need work. Since this is a "low risk" article, WP:DEADLINE should apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improvable, and clearly nptable, per the other comments. there is no deadline, which is reasonable, considering that most Wikipedia articles are in such bad shape that one could find some reason to delete them. It's a poor idea to list them for AfD in the hope of attracting attention, because they're liable to go unnotice in the crowd & be deleted, which is the dead opposite of the right solution. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable aspect found in many works of fiction. Any movie review for the Hulk or various other movies while talk about the characters superhuman strength, that one of his defining characteristics. Google news and Google book results are plenty, but no sense sorting through them all. I doubt anyone doubts that superhuman strength is a common feature found through comic book and cartoon characters. It was also found in many mythical and Biblical characters as well, such as Hercules and Samson. Dream Focus 21:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring Luciana

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

Artist is not really notable, album certainly isnt notable per WP:NALBUMS as it has not recieved independent coverage and doesn't even have an sources. It serves no purpose other than to provide a track listing. It would be better being merged to Luciana Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale, unless someone involved can come up with some evidence about supposed success in the clubs. (What clubs? How successful?) Also, note that in the case of a merge, the link to the singer is Luciana (entertainer). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. At best an nn-bio also possible hoax/attack. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler B. Gundersen DDS

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

CSD:A7 was removed by an IP (who may or may not have been the author). I suggest speedy delete, as a blatantly non-notable person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged as an attack page. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and as a blatant hoax. Don't know if I would put it as an attack page but definitely a hoax and a non notable person. Mauler90 _talk 22:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This kind of recreation is covered under criterion A10. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighstream pictures

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

The article has been recreated under the name Lightstream Pictures. 5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage

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

Doesn't need an article, certainly seems to fail WP:NOTFILM. Suggest merger with Rush (band) at the very least. magnius (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Quick search on Rotten Tomatoes would have come up with several different reviews. And a simple Gnews search comes up with One from the Washington Post and and another review. And those were just a few that I found with 5 minutes of searching, there's plenty more out there. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and Speedily. I think even a bit of superficial research could have shown that this article easily meets general notability criteria, let alone WP:NOTFILM. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and yes, speedily, per sourcable notability easily available through this AFD's own Find sources above that shows meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG.[7] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily enough coverage to pass. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per General Principles #3, the film won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival, which is a legitimate major event: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64130R20100502 It was also reviewed by the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/04/26/beyond-the-lighted-stage-exclusive-clip-from-new-rush-doc/) and Toronto (CA) Globe And Mail: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/rush-beyond-the-lighted-stage-very-loud-and-justifiably-proud/article1598256/) among many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP*, I concur with General Priciples #3, The film DID win an award! and furthermore I'll apologize now but if you're going to list knuckleheads like Justin Bieber as "musical artists" you very well must list a legendary group like RUSH and ALL their accomplishments, and accolades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.139.66 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasa Plavsic

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

Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, and no relevant collegiate history. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:FOOTY/N JonBroxton (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by a very nice, helpful, new editor who did not understand the notability criteria prior to him creating this article, and who reached out for help and guidance afterwards. I want to make a major point of encouraging him to continue working on Wikipedia, because although it fails the notability, this article is *VERY* well written, and I think this editor can be an asset to the FOOTY project. I left him a note on his talk page at User talk:207.81.39.233. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rosenlund

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

Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, and no relevant collegiate history. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:FOOTY/N JonBroxton (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by a very nice, helpful, new editor who did not understand the notability criteria prior to him creating this article, and who reached out for help and guidance afterwards. I want to make a major point of encouraging him to continue working on Wikipedia, because although it fails the notability, this article is *VERY* well written, and I think this editor can be an asset to the FOOTY project. I left him a note on his talk page User talk:207.81.39.233. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have already had in my notes how Rosenlund was with VPS Vaasa for a while and have added it to the article incase it helps with not getting it removed. I originally didn't add it as I wanted to make sure I had all my references ready. However I am still in search of the reference I found on him playing with the 2nd team who plays in the 3rd highest division of the league against a team in the 2nd highest league in which he scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraju01 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, if Rosenlund only played for the reserve squad at Vaasa in Finland, that would not be enough to assert notability; it has to be a full league game (first team) in a fully professional league/competition. If he had appeared in a fully competitive Veikkausliiga game, or a game in the Finnish Cup, that would be enough. Reserve games are not, unfortunately. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cariris (footwear)

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

Spammy article about a brand of footwear. Googling is tricky, given that the brand is named after the Cariris, who live in the area where the company is based. But adding "INBOP" to the search string returns nothing in Google News. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might find it useful to check out the history of Cariris. I came across this article which had repeatedly been switched between an article about the footwear and an article about the Brazilian tribe, and sometimes both together (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff and diff). I simply thought enough was enough and that a better solution was to create a disambiguation page and let both articles be improved without this content dispute continuing. Astronaut (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Here is the first edit that turned the article from one about the footwear into one about the indian tribe. As you can see, this edit is more than one year old, and there is not much we can do about it now. However, I don't see a single revision that is about the footwear and that shows this brand merits inclusion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know the edit that introduced the tribe text is over a year old, but since then several edits reintroduced the footwear to the article (admittedly with very similar wording to previous versions) - I listed the diffs above. TBH, I too see little merit in the footwear article; but I still think it was worthwhile splitting the two so both could be improved or deleted on their own merits. Astronaut (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Astronaut, I do see what you are trying to do here: there's been a lot of edit warring on Cariris between the footwear and Indian factions. Splitting the content in two is a good way to deal with that. But having searched a lot for sources myself (including in Portuguese, I just can't find evidence that the footwear company meets notability requirements. This article's deletion would be an odd fate for its content, which lived for a long time in the original Cariris article before that was repurposed, but think of it this way: if the editor from this diff had simply tagged the original article as an A7, waited til it was deleted, and then created a new article about the indigenous people at the same title, I think this case would have looked quite open and shut to us. If the deletion does go ahead, I'll watchlist Cariris to help to keep down the edit warring. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. is it usual for discussions about wrestling subjects to ignore the sourcing issue when that is the primary issue for consideration at AFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nexus (Professional wrestling)

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

It has barely been a month since the formation, and I feel that maybe in a couple more months notability could be established. It's also mostly a cut and paste from a section of the WWE NXT article. Θaks ter 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Θaks ter 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at this time.--WillC 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is a big thing right now and are being pushed into greatness they arn't leaving anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.155.222 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete They are becoming notable but you've got a point that it's only been a month since the formation so I gotta say they need a little be more time ~~(But if someone says something to the contrary I might change at any time).--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete or redirect to WWE NXT, too early. Nikki♥311 01:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, if stables like The Vinces Devils can have articles and the New Breed can have articles these guys should have an article. Plus this article is well written, so it should be kept..You are just going to have to readd it later anyway. Final Flash (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki♥311 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW. Also, the impact they have done already is, in my humble opinion, enough to warrant a page for them. Fantasma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it. One can't be much more notable than that. A better argument could be made that articles for the individual Nexus members should be eliminated and incorporated into this article since their respective careers have largely not been notable outside of NXT/Nexus. EvWill (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am now going to stay a delete now. Fantasma, You can't assume they won't end next week anyway saying that violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, the guideline in which Nikki stated before.--Curtis23's Us al ions 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the reports are true and Wade Barrett is currently deported in real life due to visa issues, that could make some significant effect to the storyline before it's barely started. And speaking as a fan of this storyline, I still believe an article is not needed. The history simply consists of: beat people up, demand contracts, beat more people up, get contracts, beat even more people up. That could be summed up in a couple of sentences (and it already is through WWE NXT#Season 1). -- Θaks ter 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reported that Barrett's visa issues weren't as severe as initially thought. Th 2005 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This group is going to be very famous in the next month,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that comment, you just proved it should be deleted because you stated its not famous yet. Future notability is the same as no notability!. You can't speculate that notability will be achieved, you have to wait for it, and when its achieved, an article can be made. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also violates WP:CRYSTALBALL to.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above this. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of sources and are argubly the number 1 storyline in WWE right now. STAT -Verse 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "argubly". Red Flag on the Right Side 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD is filled with stuff like "They will be very famous next month"-If they are they will get a page next month and this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Arguably the #1 storyline right now" This violates WP:NPOV. "The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it."-WP:CRYSTALBALL We don't know if they'll end next week."The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW."-WP:CRYSTALBALL."You are just going to have to read it later anyway"-WP:CRYSTALBALL. All 5 keep comments have a violation: 4 WP:CRYSTALBALL violations and 1 WP:NPOV violation. Can't you people who vote keep see that.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are the most talked about stable in the entire WWE right now. infact perhaps of all Pro Wrestling.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a long term storyline already making headlines. They were involved in the main event at a pay per view and Barrett as it's leader does have a title match coming (unless he doesn't sort out his visa issues which I doubt). Podgy Stuffn (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're not notable yet. The Main Event Mafia was given the same consideration during it's first few additions. It's too soon for this article. Don^MEGĂ|60645 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. The repeated "We will always say 'maybe next month'...and then, next month, repeat 'maybe next month'...and then, the month after that, repeat 'maybe next month'" needs to stop. There is no actual dividing line that will cause WP:PW to recognize someone as notable, so this discussion has happened countless other times with tag teams and stables in major promotions...always ending with the article being created months later. The only important question is "Can an article with a decent amount of detail, sourced to reliable references outside of the promotion's website, be created at this point?" Obviously, that's exactly what has already happened, so this discussion is not needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is quite clear that this group is part of a major storyline. Pretending otherwise is ignoring the fact they have, already, been featured in two feud-events (or whatever you call it). They're at the very least here to stay until this storyline is finished. They're just as notable as any other group, arguably more so as one could say the whole point of the NXT first season was to get them over for this...which, given what's happened, seems highly likely. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can not agree with Curtis re WP:CRYSTAL because they are already doing things now, and the Barrett title shot (per Podgy) is a given. Also, they are all from the first season of NXT so it is a flow on and seperate now that we have eight new NXT rookies. Mal Case (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major part of the current WWE storyline, and several of them are better known for being in the group than individually. There is also a page for Rated-RKO, who were only together for six months. Steveweiser (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the current centerpiece of the WWE's storylines. Its notability is already established, and its potential to be further expanded on a weekly basis is through the roof. This is an extremely wasteful nomination. Vodello (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big group right now. Muur (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group is a notable stable of a notable television show. An article is suitable for them. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to WWE NXT and create a section for it in expansion of Season 1.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect will only make nxt page much bigger than it needs to be. Also other wrestling stables have their own pages and if deleted it will likely end up with its own page down the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.84.84 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They have been prominently featured on Raw since they have arrived there, and their feud with John Cena and others is seemingly always featured as the most important thing, but from the arguments above I can go either way. WWEFan225 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Storywise, they're the biggest thing WWE has going for them. They attacked the WWE's poster boy John Cena, CM Punk, Jerry Lawler, and other personalities in their official "coming out" party, attacked a former WWF champion Bret Hart the following week, and attacked the head of the WWE Vince McMahon the week after that. While they're largely seen as "rookies," the Nexus has many years of wrestling experience between them. They have become main-event players in a remarkably short time, or at best shaking up the bland storylines on the Raw brand. Nemalki (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite clearly a group that is being pushed by WWE and will remain so. Deletion seems redundant as the page will only need to be recreated in a months time. White43 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this because this discussion is almost worthless as an exercise of establishing consensus as hardly any of the comments have any grounding in policy. To help the next admin reviewing this discussion, please can participants comment on a) the breadth and nature of sources specific to this subject and b) whether this makes them independently notable per GNG (i.e not inherited). Whether to merge or redirect does not need admin tools to resolved so we are really only looking at delete or keep at this stage. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- on the basis of the article being about nothing but just the attacks by the group. The entire section of "Attacks" goes into detail and detail about all their attacks, but it's not informing the readers about anything. Why was the group formed? Why do they attack? Why are they still together? Why are they in unity after losing Season 1 of NXT? The fact that the members formed a group and were awarded WWE contracts even though Barrett was the only one that one NXT S. 1, can all be summarized in about 1 or 2 paragraphs in the section for the main WWE NXT article and its season 1 section. --Truco ₅₀₃ 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. That's really the only question—are they given a fair amount of discussion in reliable, non-primary sources. The answer is yes, so they meet notability guidelines. "Maybe later" is just a personal preference, IDONTLIKEIT response when the notability guideline has been met. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I completely agree with Truco's comments which furthers my previous comments on this article. And with regards to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do actually appreciate the stable on TV. However, I just feel that a stable that hasn't even had a single match since their formation (until next Monday, which in itself is a future event) lacks notability. -- Θaks ter 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more reason why they formed, so the guy who complained can be quite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muur (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one, be WP:CIVIL. Second of all, you added nothing but pure personal opinion. I stay with my delete. No one is arguing notability, but what is the point of an encyclopedic article that is informing the reader nothing but rather giving news about what they are doing on a weekly basis. At least Straight Edge Society has a basis to be an article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, assuming the various sources are really considered independent of the subject, and all that (I'm not familiar with how reporting on Pro Wrestling is done). It appears that these guys have enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, regardless of whether they've fought yet or not. Being covered is sufficient for an article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wrestling Observer Newsletter, WrestleView, and Pro Wrestling Torch are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide as independent websites proven reliable. Sky Sports is not specifically related to wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has been a group for about a month now on WWE programming and it's one of the biggest angles currently in professional wrestling. They wear "N" wristbands and other various things to show they belong to this stable. It's an obvious keep because as I said, they are a major part of WWE programming and will be in following months. At least 2 of them will also have a continued career after the stable ends(doesnt look to happen anytime soon). Y5nthon5a (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Christopher Pearsall

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

Procedural nomination. Speedy A7 contested on the grounds that the subject (who is not the article creator) wants it kept. No assertion of importance, just an ordinary Joe. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Delete, speedy if possible. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, clear A7. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7). Would have been a lay-down A7 speedy but for the fact that the speedy was contested by someone other than the article's creator. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. No evidence of importance. JNW (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Straight-forward A7, had the speedy tag not been removed by (what looks like) the article's subject. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clear A7 case. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'll add my !vote to hopefully help to snowball this ASAP. freshacconci talktalk 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vigésimo Primero

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

Redlink artist, {{db-album}} was removed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reason the {{db-album}} tag was removed is that the article is older than the A9 speedy criterion. But since it does meet the criterion, and speedy criteria do not have a grandfather clause exempting articles, it should be deleted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the procedure here is a little out of whack, but per precedent at the Albums Project the artist has to achieve notability first, before the albums can be considered for their own articles. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McKegg

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

Non-notable junior player. Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE nor WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Article can be recreated when/if the player plays professional or otherwise achieves notability. By much past prescedence being drafted unless in the first round does not confer notability. -DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has yet to win a significant amateur award, be drafted in the 1st round of the NHL draft, or play professionally. Once subject meets one of those criteria, article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kils me to say delete a st thomas player, however he was drafted 3rd round and has not played professionally yet. Though i do think that will change one day. Until then the article could be re-created for now it should be deleted Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t see a gold medal for this junior hockey player. The article for this player will likely be recreated after he has played his first NHL game, or otherwise once he meets the inclusion criteria per WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Dolovis (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megan and Liz

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

Non-notable music duo lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO adn WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a thread about this duo at the WP:MUSIC talk page. The gist being: times are changing fast. WP:MUSIC talks, for instance, about albums on the charts. In 2005 that made sense; today it means little or nothing, since no one buys albums. Well, old people do, consequently people like Susan Boyle et al top the charts (but with sales an order of magnitude lower than in 2000), even though they are not really hot acts. I'm not saying this duo is notable, but it's an interesting question. WP:MUSIC does not even mention YouTube views, yet don't these count for something? This pair claims 1.2 million for one of their songs. I don't even know if that's a comparatively large number or not. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - albums DO still exist, just not in the format that Herostratus suggested above (ie, vinyl). Since anyone can post a YT video, I feel that this makes YT an unreliable source - for MOST things. When I say MOST, I know that there is a List_of_YouTube_personalities who have become famous/imfamous with their YT postings, but I do not believe that in cases like this that it can be used to establish notability. Now, one appearance on Oprah and 1 released album to date doesn't quite satisfy the notability requirements in my book. I !voted "weak" due to the Oprah appearance. Without that, this would be a slam-dunk speedy delete. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record, paid downloads count toward the music charts (at least the Billboard charts). For example, Eminem's album Recovery sold 741,000 copies its first week, of which 255,000 were downloads. [8] If YouTube views eventually become a meaningful way of judging a music artist's popularity, I suspect that Billboard will develop a chart to monitor that, but until then, I prefer to use the traditional charts (which have been updated to include digital sales). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Megan and Liz are still rising in their fame and are quickly adding to their fan base. Their achievements will have more significance as they make more television appearances and release new songs, which is happening fast. The article itself needs more details but I think it shouldn't be deleted. The appearance on Oprah was only the beginning. --JRsingersongwriter (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, somebody's gotta vote one way another; it's already been relisted once. I !vote Keep based on WP:JUST_SO_FRIGGIN_CUTE_YOU_COULD_PUKE. Oh wait. I mean, based on their notability. They don't qualify under WP:MUSIC, but they have fan sites all over the world, so I'll go in for a little jury nullification here. My take -- it's kind of a guess -- is that they have tons of fans and that however that's manifested or not manifested, it makes it worthwhile to have an article about them. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 9

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

Non-notable compilation album. I see nothing special on Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are no detailed sources discussing this albumn is should be deleted and redirected to the group. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather

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

Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. Claritas § 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per correct outcome of the other AfD. Reyk _YO! 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a trivial intersection, no other deletion rationale given. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable characters to Weather control#in popular culture where a similar list has already popped up. Tavix | Talk 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in favor of Tavix's thought. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with merging, in that the entire contents of the list are unsourced, and the whole "source" column seems to be original research. Claritas § 07:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what Jclemens means by "Not a trivial intersection", but "no other deletion rationale given" is certainly not true, as WP:NOTDIR is given. WP:NOTDIR seems to be exactly right. Claritas's objection to merging seems to me a good one. If anyone thinks anything from this list can usefully be added to Weather control#in popular culture then they can be added individually. That can be done without wholesale merging from this list, and since this list contains nothing that needs preserving, such as sources to support such additions to the other list, there is no reason why adding to that list should be treated specifically as merging from this one. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also support either blanking the crufty popular culture list in Weather control or editing it into a concise section in encyclopedic prose. Them From Space 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that, it seems to be a WP:TRIVIA violation. I'll bring it up on the article's talk page. Claritas § 09:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to echo my comments made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. My expertise is mostly in anime and manga, but I found many of the anime/manga lists to be extremely dubious throwing in water, ice, or wind manipulations into "weather". I have to wonder as to exactly what the encyclopedic purpose of this lists is other than providing a trivial cross-categorization between two loosely associated topics. —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most recent good practice is to delete lists like these. When editors disagree about what is trivial, we go to the sources. There are none. It's a made up topic for a list which is why it often descends into dubious entries on that list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improvable, and a significant concept. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a policy-based argument for keeping this. Claritas § 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Armenians

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

Per the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders, this is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization and hence fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, and arguably also WP:SALAT. Claritas § 20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO and per consensus at the other AfD that these sorts of articles are not appropriate. Reyk _YO! 03:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, like most all List of fictional people from Nation X style articles, is an arbitrary cross-categorization which fails WP:SALAT since the topic is too wide to be able to write a discriminate list without resorting to original research. WP:IINFO and W:NOTDIR also come into play. Them From Space 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just to be clear here, WP:WAX doesn't apply because it's not simply a case of noting the (non)existence of another article, but noting that this one suffers from exactly the same problems and thus that all the same arguments are applicable. In a sense it's really a late co-nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but have no objection to a category. Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists: Category:Fictional Armenian people. Claritas § 09:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Arbitrary cross-categorization that fails WP:SALAT and can only be written by synthesizing original research. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place to publish anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is well written and has enough sources. WölffReik (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why on Earth was this relisted instead of closed as delete? The arguments for deletion far exceed those for keeping by quantity and quality. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to know. Consensus is pretty clear. Reyk _YO! 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Hopper

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

Article is about a person with questionable notability, and is still a stub despite being two years old. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little significant coverage in independent sources (i.e. not press releases). Fails WP:BIO. Claritas § 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for several reasons. 1. There is no deadline to fix articles. 2. Stubs are valid. 3. This is a BLP with three sources. 4. We should follow the past precedent of past outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist) and similar discussions about reporters. 5. There are thousands of other possible sources online that should have been looked at before nomination. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to get back to grading midterms. I think it's good enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news media considers this person notable enough to mention them. And when someone discusses the actions of a company, they are discussion the decisions of the CEO, at least in this case. The company doesn't decide on its own to do things, all major actions go through the CEO. Dream Focus 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per WP:ANYBIO as the subject has won an Emmy Award and meets WP:GNG. She get plenty of ghits on PRNewswire which easily could be added to her article for improvement as an alternate to deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French-Bread

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

Non-notable company. Neither old nor new name has any relevant ghits on Books or Scholar. Unreferenced for 5 years. Prod contested by original author. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage for this game. --Teancum (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches

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

Delete. Excuse for huge list of WP:NN people. Anyway, Wikipedia ia not a list. See WP:NOT. Student7 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of them are certainly notable, but such a huge exhaustive list is perhaps too indiscriminate. Some of the individual church/cathedral sublists may be worth merging to the articles on those places.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would be nice if there were sources for the names, of course, before they were dumped in a cathedral / church article... but that would be asking for too much, alas. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long-standing merger proposal that would see any notable names (i.e. people with articles, or people without articles but with references and a realistic chance of passing WP:BIO) merged into Organ scholar. I did the same thing after a previous discussion on a similar list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British universities and colleges. However, I can't actually face sorting the wheat from the chaff on this list, as (a) from a quick look it's overwhelmingly a list of non-notable organists without any references for their existence let alone association with a church or cathedral, and (b) even stripping this list down to its "notable core" and merging it somewhere else wouldn't add greatly to the sum of human knowledge. So cut to the notables and merge, but I won't be doing it! And assuming no-one else can be bothered to do this (and the WikiProject on Pipe Organs has been inactive for a very long time), then switch off the blower per nom / per NN / per NOT and take one thing off my "to-do if I can ever be bothered" list. You may now start your organ-related puns.... Bencherlite ^Talk 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - maybe Merge each and every entry to the article of the Church to which the organ scholar belongs/ed - seeing as I'm on this list myself, and it's my only mention on Wikipedia, it would probably be a bit of a conflict of interest for me to !vote keep, but per WP:NLIST, there's no reason why these shouldn't be contained on the churches' own articles, seeing as lists of organists/assistant-organists are acceptable, even if the musicians do not meet WP:BIO. It would be a pity to lose the content, and I think this is the most pragmatic solution. The major problem with the list is sourcing - at the moment, it looks like it contains too much original research. There are also issues with the fact that some of the churches mentioned don't have their own articles at the moment. However, if the list is deleted, I'd like to have access to it myself (in userspace or whatever) so I can incorporate sourceable information into the main articles on the churches. Claritas § 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difficulty with this suggestion is that, in the grand scheme of things, organ scholars who are not notable for their later achievements ought not really to be included in an article about the church/cathedral in question. Wikipedia can't possibly catalogue all the people who've held low-level positions at a church/cathedral, as WP:NOTDIR makes clear. If we list the organ scholars of St Foo's Church, why not the treasurers, or the head servers, or the lead Sunday School organiser? I speak as a former organ scholar myself, incidentally, though not at a church/cathedral. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. The vast majority of entries is not notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the whole organ scholar tradition is without parallel, and this list functions as an incredibly useful online CV. There's a tradition of moving around positions, and therefore the list would be, by its very nature, a long one. Simply stating that it should be deleted because there are a lot of unrecognisable names betrays ignorance. An organ scholarship is not a job. It certainly isn't a 'low level job' as somebody suggested. it's a learning process and so the majority of people listed are not big names yet, but may well be. Also, this is the sole record of such appointments. Nowhere else has such a comprehensive list and therefore it is an extremely important historical document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.170.11 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Wikipedia is not here to provide a CV service for up-and-coming musicians. (2) Being an organ scholar is a low-level position within the church / cathedral music hierarchy, frankly. He/she is the bottom of the pile of organists. Some of these are said to be sixth-form musicians (for the non-UK audience, that's students aged between 16 and 18). Wikipedia's not here to record lists of such achievements (they may be important for the individual concerned, but that's not the test). (3) As for the people on the list possibly becoming big names, see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEXTBIGTHING. If they become notable, we can have an article about them, but lumping together lots of non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) people isn't what Wikipedia is for. (4) "This is the sole record of such appointments" is, alas, possibly true (seeing as the vast majority of the names have no references at all, which is another problem with it) but irrelevant to the deletion decision. If the organist community wants to copy it somewhere else before it's deleted, or to set up a wiki where such a list would be acceptable, it is more than welcome to do so. (5) "It's an extremely important historical document" lacks a little bit of perspective, surely.... Bencherlite ^Talk 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of them probably are not actually notable--it would be different if we thought we could write a valid article on most of them; However, I note that most of the people here are not "up-and-coming" -- this is a list of all of them, not just the current incumbents. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saranne Dawson

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

This article does not meet the GNG. The author in question has written many books, but they were all category romances. This means that the books were available for only 30 days and were then removed from store shelves. I can find no coverage of this author in reliable sources under any of her pseudonyms, nor have I found reviews of her novels. This implies that she does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, as per nom. Claritas § 21:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wootton

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

This article fails the GNG. There is no significant coverage - and precious little trivial coverage - of this author. I've found one newspaper article that mentions in passing one of the pseudonyms as being a writer of erotic literature, but no other reliable sources. I'm also unable to verify the other pseudonyms, or that any of these actually belong to the name on the article title. The page was created by User:Wendy Wootton, so it's likely the info is true, but independent verification would be nice. There are no reviews of the author's books in any reliable source that I can find, so I don't think this article meets any of the criteria for inclusion. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. On Google Books I found a single, passing mention of her in a Goth encyclopedia. On Google, she gets fewer hits than a physician in Arizona with the same name. On Google News I found nothing at all. No doubt she has a following among her readers, but she does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine lubricants

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

None of the supplied sources indicate how this particular product (or even the company that makes it) is notable. Smells like a big advert to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, smells quite advert.—Sandahl (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm philosophically inclusionist, but one thing I can't stand is corporate spam like this. Unwikified, which is the first clue. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Curses: A Chicago Punk Rock Compilation

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

Non-notable compilation album with only one fleeting reliable source that I can find at CMJ Music Report from 2000. A few of the bands included mention it on their websites. Otherwise the compilation has gained no significant coverage. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the CMJNMR mention above, I did find this, which looks like it may be more substantial coverage, but the article is basically just a tracklisting and the sources available are not really sufficient either to establish notability or to turn it into a worthwhile article.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-notable business/cart est. 6/2010 Acroterion _(talk) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevies chicken n waffles

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

Non-notable "food cart" WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7, tagging as such. — Timneu22 · talk 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Technologies

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

No independent, third-party sources could be found on this business, other than some passing mention. This does not satisfy notability guidelines for organizations and companies, per WP:CORP & WP:FAILN. Vipinhari || talk 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the given sources are insufficient and others can not be found, therefore I follow the nom. Dewritech (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. –MuZemike 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

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

There is already an existing page for this organization under the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The information on the existing page is complete, whereas the information on the page suggested for deletion has already been flagged for not appearing to be neutral KellySSHRC (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The correct name of the agency appears to include "of Canada", so the merged article should be moved there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, cleanup and redirect per Eastmain (talk • contribs). Seems more like a naming convention issue.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is a clear content fork to include one specific case that has been presumably excluded from the main article. I know little about the controversy but as someone who has also been denied SSHRC funding I can tell you it happens. The sources for the controversy are far from convincing: the only decent source is for Nature which is a pay-per-view article. The rest are dead links. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reasons for retention after the first relist have not been rebutted. –MuZemike 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myth Men Guardians of the Legend

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

No indication it meets notability criteria for books. Unsourced. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would appear that sources exist behind pay walls due to the age of the series (dates back to 1996). This google news search indicates it was reviewed in major papers such as the Chicago Tribune. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up the article, wikified it and added sources. It was hard to find WP:RS material because of the age of the books, as Whpq noted, but the series is said to have won a Children's Choice award, and there was a CBS television cartoon series based on the books--MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana McNeill

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

fails WP:ACADEMIC/WP:BIO Hekerui (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article states that she is head of Duke's Internal Residency Program, but this does not satisfy the criteria listed in WP:PROF. The information listed on her Duke webpage does not seem sufficient for notability and I couldn't find anything else from Google searches. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think being residency director and vice chairman of the medicine department at a major (maybe top 20) med school meets the spirit of WP:PROF, although admittedly not any specific criteria; she's also of Professor rank and appears to have published reasonably well (per PubMed), although not breathtakingly so. I certainly don't think all residency directors meet this threshold, but as the spouse of a former residency director (note: with no connection to Duke or to this subject), I do think some residency directors meet notability in the medical field through their roles. Vartanza (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If all we can say about her is that she's head of a department or the equivalent, then that's clearly not enough for WP:PROF nor for WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole

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

A previous AfD for a large number of articles about P. G. Wodehouse characters, including Anatole, resulted in no concensus to delete all the articles but the suggestion by the closing administrator that the articles be renominated individually. This is the individual renomination for Anatole. Not only does this Wodehouse character fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters, but "Anatole" may refer to many things that are much more notable. As such, the page under this title should not be a redirect to an entry in a list but it should rather be a disambiguation page listing such entries as Anatole (TV series) and Anatole (given name). Neelix (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Merging to an appropriate list would also be an option. Claritas § 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Marvel Comics who can fly

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

This list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization analagous to "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". There are already seventy other lists of Marvel Comics characters; there is no need to recapitulate on another list all the ones who happen to be able to fly. Neelix (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why not. If it is of interested to some people to re-categorize Marvel characters and list the ones who can fly, then make it 71. If this is one is to be deleted, then why not re-think 69 of the existing 70, as anything but the full list of marvel characters would be a recapitulation. Raisescale (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason given for deletion, since flying is not a cross-categorization, but a frequent element of superheroic powers. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, this is an encyclopaedic cross-categorization. It's taking all members of the set Marvel Comics caracters and all members of the set fictional characters who can fly and just listing members of the intersection (if we imagine a Venn diagram. Flying in Marvel Comics isn't an encyclopaedic topic, and thus this is a pure WP:NOTDIR violation. Claritas § 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't bet too much on that latter. At least one other encyclopaedia, ISBN 9780313329517, has an entry that is specifically about flight in science fiction and fantasy, that includes amongst others superheroes with the power of flight. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're fundamentally misunderstanding the idea of and criteria for "non-encyclopedic cross categorization." If you'll look at the examples you're linking to, they are of intersections of unrelated things. Superheroes and flight are far from unrelated. The above entry by Uncle G just reinforces that. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article resulted from the "listify" consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 28#Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as long as no one takes the deletion of this list somehow as a mandate to recreate the category. The arguments for its unsuitability here as a list make it doubly unsuitable as a category. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nonencyclopedic cross-categorization. As Claritas points out, Flying in Marvel Comics is not a topic that an encyclopedia should cover and it performs no useful navigational purpose either. It's way too broad for that. You might as well start List of characters in Marvel Comics who have black hair or List of characters in Marvel Comics who have blood type A+. Reyk _YO! 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the last consensus regarding Marvel characters with flight ended in listifying them. Really, there isn't an urgent need in deleting the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Holloway

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

no actual links or specific information that allows finding the mentioned sources, name is not on the accompanying websites of Radio Times and Henley Standard, can't find mentioned award in award coverage, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; many aspects of the article make it seem like a hoax, or at least a spoof. BTW is this a second AfD nomination? On his facebook page [9] there is an entry " nominated for deletion again :( ". --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question: based on the history it's been prodded and proposed for speedy, both declined, but this appears to be the first AfD nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junior downsman

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

Non-notable Scouting competition of some sort. PROD contested with the remark that it is "[n]otable as a facet of scouting in general," yet Google shows only six hits for this term altogether, not counting the article itself. Based on the results, including this, it may be something done only by the 1st Southbourne Sea Scouts troop. That makes it about as notable as any given high school's prom or local car dealership's annual sales promotion. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourced, basic information missing. I would say merge to Scouting, except that there is nothing verified to merge. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayedna Hatim

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

The person doesn't look like notable under Wikipedia Policy.Though I am not very sure about it. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has provided eleven references that mention this early leader of the Dawoodi Bohra sect, a sect that (if its Wikipedia article is to believed) counts one million adherents. I can't verify the references, but assuming good faith, I believe that so much coverage denotes notability for a historic figure. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WikiDan61. The references provided should be AGF-ed, unless there is some tangible evidence to question them. Note that this book[10] mentions Syedna Hatim's grave as an important place of pilgrimage. Nsk92 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia if editors keep bringing articles to AfD despite being "not very sure about it". Shreevatsa (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be ample evidence for the importance of this fellow to the Moslems and as a historical/religious figure. The article needs some cleanup and wikification, but it has been improving markedly since I rescued it from being speedy'd. The author seems motivated to continue improving it. Zelse81 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs somebody to go through the article with a fine toothed comb and turn it into something a monolingual non-specialist will be able to understand, but especially in difficult cases like this randomly deleting important topics while we remain oblivious that we've just lopped off a century of someone's history can't possibly be our best strategy.Minnowtaur (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WikiDan61 Sherenk (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creation by a banned user in violation of ban (CSD G5). T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child computer

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

Original research. Does not contain reliable sources, but rather relies on links to a sales site. Content seems to have been sourced from a website on how to toddler proof your computer. Gobonobo ^T ^C 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am... Sasha Fierce Super Edition

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

Advertising for a re-release of an album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was not even an attempt at writing an article here. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, the re-release can be mentioned in one sentence at I Am... Sasha Fierce. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: this re-release can be covered at the album's article. Cliff smith ^talk 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keats Island (British Columbia) with no prejudice to merging content from the edit history to that article if verifiable. –MuZemike 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keats Camps

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

Non-notable summer camp. I see that it's gotten coverage here from local website CanadianChristianity.com, and Google Books shows passing mentions here in the Yearbook of the Baptist Union of Western Canada and here in somebody's memoir. I can't find anything else that could amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I've moved the following comment by the article's creator from the talk of this project page:

You are also missing these:

http://keatscamps.com/

http://www.keatsisland.net/

http://www.1t23.com/worldtravel/canada/bc/guide_KeatsIsland.html

http://photos.nsmb.com/showimage.php?i=12991&c=11

http://www.nsnews.com/travel/ready+sleep+away+camp/3062866/story.html

The fact that the camp sees around 1200 campers per summer should not be over looked.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keats Island (British Columbia), which already mentions the camp. The nsnews article does appear to be about the camp (though in a very local publication); the other sources are either completely trivial or self published. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Keats Island (British Columbia), as rationalized by User: VQuakr.--Pink Bull 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or at the least not much improvement at all since the first AFD. –MuZemike 01:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green (Ray LaMontagne album)

AfDs for this article:

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

No substantial coverage and self-released demos are non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, but found this album listed as a demo recording in pages sharing unreleased LaMontagne content. Hekerui (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is a desperate attempt to get more votes on the first AfD from just one month ago, in which the same nominator suggested deletion for the exact same reason, and that AfD was closed as Keep. Here the nominator is pushing the tired old "demos are non-notable" rationale even though the voters in the first AfD argued that the album is not really a "demo," and the admin who closed the AfD was convinced by their arguments. If you don't like the outcome of a previous AfD it's legit to nominate again IF something has changed and IF you have something to say beyond what didn't work last time. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The no significant coverage part is what I think matters. Hekerui (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the nomination contains a second point that was found to be invalid.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reasons that convinced the admin in the first AfD one month ago because the nominator has provided absolutely nothing new with this second nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm not an administrator. I only closed the first AFD because it had been listed for 13 days with only 2 !votes, both "keep". The usual custom for "keep" closes is to wait a few months before a renomination but considering how little participation there was in the previous AFD, I can't fault Justin for the faster then normal renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator is simply misrepresenting the terms of the policy he claims to cite. Lamontagne is a clearly notable artist, and there's no good reason to punch holes in his discography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response How can you speedy keep an unsourced article with no apparent sources? Cf. WP:V. Anything without sources is original research, which is expressly forbidden. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo probably meant "Strong Keep" while "Speedy Keep" is a procedural matter that won't work in this case. Just like re-nominating something for AfD with no new arguments whatsoever. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the wikification, the notability issues were not addressed. –MuZemike 01:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K.K.N.M.Sundarapandian

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

the only thing sourced with a link is that this person was, apparently, municipality ward member of the Kumbakonam town, which isn't notable Hekerui (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, the general notability guidelines otherwise, and to make proper use of spacing/punctuation.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:POLITICIAN. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikified the article to some decent shape. Vipinhari || talk 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Ride (TC album)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an article: it's advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - part of a DJ series listed on the Watch the Ride disambig page. None of them are notable nor is the series itself. Each release could be briefly mentioned at each respective DJ biography page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Glory

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources is evidenced and my search doesn't turn it up. Hekerui (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Jordan

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

Does not meet criteria listed at WP:BIO. Only one reliable independent source, avn.com, the rest are just unreliable porn sites. Not enough to construct an article from. The poor girl got sucked into an industry that destroys people - she dies before even leaving her teens, but also not particularly notable either. Jackdaw and Wool (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails PORNBIO & GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO. Coverage in AVN is about her death which falls under BIO1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we decide to delete her page why not delete ALL the other Female & Male pornstars that wiki has up. because it makes no sense to remove her just because her bio is small or she was nineteen or what field of acting she was in. she was still kind of famous and had many many fans.

beside that if We can keep Tom Dong up in Wikipedia who was basically a nobody porn actor who was killed by a sword as the only reason that he up here in the first place then Ami Jordan should be a shoe-in to stay. Here a reliable source an obituary of this actress. http://www.bowersfh.com/sitemaker/sites/Bowers1/obit.cgi?user=213296Thacker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.204.162 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Tom Dong (Herbert Hin Wong) has been deleted now. Stephen Clancy Hill exists, but there are a couple of independent media sources there to justify that article's inclusion which this article here does not have.--Jackdaw and Wool (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Critzos II

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

Non notable subject. No indication of importance. Vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though there are numerous articles supporting the keeping of this particular article. The subject, Critzos, seems to have had not only a notable career in the martial arts, but has also been inducted into several Halls of Fame. The assertions are also verified by several unrelated sources. As a noted practitioner who apparently still continues to train at the United States Naval Academy (this too is verified by the USNA web cite), it would appear that this is exactly the type of article that should stay in print as opposed to deletion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.246.136 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article itself, ALL lead to independent sources that verify the facts contained in the article itself. Independent web cites, publications, and news articles seem to provide not only notability, but also substantiation. Based on these sources it would appear that the article more than meets the required standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.145.22 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reliable sources can be found and added to the article. The subject appears to be a multiple national champion/finalist, which would demonstrate notability under WP:WPMA/N criterion 4. There are no references provided for these claims in the article, but this is one possible source. The article does need improvement. Janggeom (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review of the sources cited indicate independent and reliable information and sources. Further, a general internet search indicates that the subject is of notable stature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.154.37 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have followed this thread and am unsure as to why this article has been re-listed so many times. A review of the article, its links to sources, and a general Google search of the subject reveals that notability has been more than satisfied. Also, the sources are numerous, independent, and authoritative. The style, however, could be somewhat improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.5.1 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previous AFD ended 8 days ago and, while the article has been largely rewritten in the interim, nominator cites only notability as a cause for deletion - and that has been debated exhaustively, as the previous AFD will indicate. An appeal of the previous AFD should go to Deletion Review. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ki Whang

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable subject. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Second deletion challenge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) — Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong speedy keep. The matter was exhaustively discussed, the notability challenge was refuted, and consensus to keep was reached, a week ago in this AfD. The nominator, who is a single-purpose account that exists purely for the purpose of trying to delete this article, is merely forum-shopping in an attempt to do an end run around a recently-established consensus and I don't see why we should put up with it. See also WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jett Rocket

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

Notability, game only released with past 24 hours, article tells nothing about this product other than it's being a "WiiWare Game" WuhWuzDat 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article should be deleted for the same reasons I listed in it's talk page: "The deletion proposal on Jett Rocket on the grounds of a piece of media "only being released yesterday" bares absolutely no ground. Especially since there are countless articles on video games which haven't even been released. Impicating such a reason for deletion would make Wikipedia laughably out of date with any new piece of media. In addition to all that, this game is notable, as it is developed by a notable developer, on a notable platform, by a notable distribution method, so I heavily believe this article should stay." ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImNotADoctor5 (talk • contribs)

Article is under construction and is still notable. "Only states product is a WiiWare game" is indeed notable, and I am still working on the article to add a least a few more paragraphs. And please, don't edit your reason for deleting the article just because your original reason bared no ground. Don't try and make me look like a idiot, because frankly, that's something I don't appreciate. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User was warned about failure to AGF. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith beforehand, thank you. Needless to say, mentioning that you did to me, here, isn't required. So it shouldn't be used as a hollow arguement against my edits. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers. I also interpreted your deletion rationale as completely condescending. Slamming templates on the user's talk page while continuing to talk down to him on this page is only further trying to drive a new editor away. Vodello (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentative tone is neither appropriate for this venue, nor appreciated. My mention of the AGF warning was intended simply as notice, not as an argument. It was intended to inform other editors who may also feel that statements like "Don't try and make me look like a idiot" fail to Assume Good Faith. WuhWuzDat 15:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ImNotADoctor5 doesn't seem to have an argumentative tone, however the tone taken here feels like a light case of WP:BITE, WuhWuz. Let's just leave this issue alone and focus on the article. --Teancum (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never intentionally been taking an "argumentative tone" (although you certainly had one towards me in your talk pages, that you have conveniently deleted), but I apologise if it seems like I have taken said tone. Needless to say though, my original counter to your AfD stands exactly as it is. I still believe it's a mistake, considering every WiiWare videogame article before it was considered notable, and that to try and delete an article because the game (which was in development for over 2 years, and gained press interest for over 6 months) was "only released yesterday" is plain absurd. Once again, thank you for your time and responses. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game doesn't inherit notability from the developer, the console, or the distribution method, but there are reliable sources for the game and it needs to show them to better demonstrate notability. IGN has covered the game and Nintendo Power wrote about it in relative detail within the last few months, so that will further the notability if someone digs that up. There's also a developer's blog for expanding on the other sources. —Ost (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Ost. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – reliable sources [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. –MuZemike 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inherently notable per reliable sources and video game notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afghan training camp. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kun Saiaf training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article is already present in the article Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush. IQinn (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bar chart of Guantanamo captives alleged attendance at training camps as per the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point.

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [16] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the absolutely wrong bad faith accusations and ad hominum part of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times.

Coming to the content issue:

Comment - This particular camp here is not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that User Geo Swan has provided elsewhere. [17] (The graph that he has placed in his comment here is taken from this report.)

This source list all notable and even the less notable training camps. That Kun Saiaf training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until there is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Afghan training camp. There does not appear to be satisfactory coverage to warrant a stand alone article at this time. --Pink Bull 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above merges Also, same concerns re nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryūsuke Mita. –MuZemike 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shugen Byakuryū Rubikura

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shugen Byakuryū Rubikura

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

Again a Disputed PROD, fellowed by a Disputed REDIRECT. I concluded that only AfD can settle it. This series and its sequel Senkoka Rubikura fail both to pass the General Notability Guideline and Book Specific Guideline. In both case, i found no evidence of notability and no licensor outside Japan. There is no English scanlation of this series & its sequel. I concluded that this series & its sequel should be Deleted. Below the factoïds:

The only source for both articles isn't RS and return Error 404. Articles are virtually unsourced save that i found a Square-Enix ref.
No evidence of notability found in both case
No licensor outside Japan found
Scanlation in English is at level 0 for this series and its sequel. Whatever both series are subjects of interest within the fandom isn't even a question

Side note: Having separated article for one series and its sequel is contravention of Wikipedia:MOS-ANIME which prefers to have one article covering both the series, its sequel(s) and adaptation(s) KrebMarkt 13:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the very same reason mentioned above Contested PROD & REDIRECT, Fail GNG & WP:BK, No licensor & scanlation. :

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect that's not so much a sequel as a continuation under another title when the serialization switched magazines (much like Aqua and Aria). But that's neither here nor there. *off to hunt for ~~snarks~~ sources* —Quasirandom (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the famous Square Soft x Enix merger. I rarely found a so dead series in term of Google search results such as those two. --KrebMarkt 21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, about the lack of g-hits. One of the most forgotten series of that size and age I've tried to search for traces of notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming up with nothing on the sources front -- seems to have sunk without comment even more thoroughly than your typical 6-volume shonen series. No evidence it passes WP:BK = redirect both to the notable author, Ryūsuke Mita, as part of his oeuvre. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Ryūsuke Mita and trout 159.182.1.4 (talk), or even an extended block, for disruptive behavior. The IP editor has been informed several times to provide third-party sources instead of mass deprodding/mass restoring articles with no third-party source and insisting on AfD for obvious mergers/redirects, but has so far refused to cooperate or even discuss the matter. —Farix (t | c) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sveasoft

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

A relatively unknown one-man (apparently) software company. Checking google suggests that the article has been a place for people who don't like the owner to attack him, and/or for him to defend himself, resulting in edit wars and suppressed revisions in the past. Article has been tagged as original research for nearly 3 years, and for quality problems for 2 years.

A survey of recent news stories (none) and archived news stories (some, but few of note) suggests that improving the article will continue to be impossible. Available evidence suggests this is a one man operation about which there is little to no 3rd party reliable information of any kind. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a software company that develops modified distributions of Wi-Fi router firmware for supported Linux-based routers. In its current state, the article suggests that actually using the software might be illegal in the US or Europe. It claims to be able to increase radio wattage almost tenfold in software -- advertised as being able to increase the router's radio transmission power from 28 milliwatts to 251 milliwatts -- which strikes me as unlikely. At any rate, there's no indication that this business or its products has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a one man band type of thing here. (apologize for original comment) Undead Warrior (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat "Hawk" Hardy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pat "Hawk" Hardy

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not able to find independent sources that show notability. This is an article that lacks independent references and appears to be autobiographical. Astudent0 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no independent references that show he meets WP:MANOTE and I couldn't find any. Papaursa (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sourcing. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Software

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

Promotion for non-notable software company, article by SPA. Though the article makes bold claims, they are not backed up. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertising: IRIS creates, markets and implements a range of business software systems designed specifically to meet the needs of Finance Directors and Finance Departments.... Even if any of the claims the article makes could be verified, this is still going to be a very behind the scenes tech business, and as such lacks historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kei Toume. –MuZemike 01:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acony (manga)

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

Contested PROD, Contested REDIRECT,... So best way to settle it is AfD. This series doesn't meet either the WP:GNG or WP:BK. I found no evidence of notability, no licensor outside Japan and no hint that it will be adapted into a movie, anime or drama. Thus i'm asking for a delete. Below the list of clues from which i based my opinion:

There is evidence of a re-print in 2009 ja 1 ja 2
No evidence of notability found. Search engine results are scanlations related websites & blogs
No licensor outside Japan found
Scanlation in English is totally stall at vol. 1 out of 2 and this series doesn't generate much buzz within the fandom KrebMarkt 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator & the Ip who contested both the PROD & the REDIRECT have been dully notified of this AfD. There is no big contents edits contributor to be notified on this one. --KrebMarkt 13:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a reprint -- serialization went on hiatus while the author worked on another series (I forget which at the moment) and resumed later, thus the large gap between volumes 1 and 2. I've found very little buzz about this one, especially compared to Toume's other series, even in forums I'd expect discussion in. It'll be interesting to see where the story goes, but until it gathers more notability, for now redirect to Kei Toume as a plausible search term relating to the author. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N; has no significant coverage in any reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kei Toume per Quasirandom, this is a possible serch title for those who are fans of the manga or of the author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kei Toume as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Kei Toume and trout 159.182.1.4 (talk), or even an extended block, for disruptive behavior. The IP editor has been informed several times to provide third-party sources instead of mass deprodding/mass restoring articles with no third-party source and insisting on AfD for clear cut mergers/redirects, but has so far refused to cooperate. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fernandez

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

Non-notable per WP:ENTERTAINER; zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; ~~sole reference given does not mention subject~~; apparent WP:COI or WP:Autobiography. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see evidence this person meets WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE or even WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article aren't independent and reliable, and I can't find significant coverage via Google searching. I concede that there might be foreign language sources I'm missing, so if someone finds any sources, I might reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability or wp:web. The site's coverage in reliable sources is limited to brief quotes from reviewers.

The article deciphers between "professional" and "amateur" reviews, but there's no sign that there's editorial oversight with the professional reviews. It simply seems like self-published content Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think its notable, just checked it at Alexa --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't there an essay that discusses how not to respond to AFD? I can't find it.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - None of the links and references are informational: as it stands this is mere advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa ratings ≠ notability. No secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Weak keep didn't look close enough, a couple sources are fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem - there are a few secondary sources in the article and over 1000 Wikipedia articles linking to the page. Anylayman (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Since it is listed on Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT. I apologize for not seeing that earlier. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gordie Walker as the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Walker (ice hockey)

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

Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE nor WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Article can be recreated when/if the player plays professional or otherwise achieves notability. By much past prescedence being drafted unless in the first round does not confer notability, nor does playing in a junior level of the world championships. DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This player is notable as a member of The United States men's national junior ice hockey team that won the 2010 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. The nom may be correct to assert that playing in the junior level of the world championships may not be enough by itself to establish notability, but this player did more than just play in the tournament - he also came home with a Gold Medal. The individual members of World Championship teams are notable. Dolovis (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individual members of the World Championships teams are notable. But he played on the World Junior Championship team. We delete these articles regularely around draft time. WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE (see point six requiring senior play) was created to show what the prescedence on player notability tends to be. For a junior player we require them to win a major individual award at the world junior championships, as opposed to just coming home with a gold. No doubt he will eventually turn pro and meet the guidelines, but there is no need to jump the gun. There have been cases in the past where players never get to the pros as expected. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself - "Individual members of the World Championships teams are notable." The fact that he played on the US men's junior team does not exclude him from such notability (point six requiring senior play is not on subject). And when you say "we", who are you talking for? I trust that you are not suggesting that speak on behalf of the entire membership of the Wikipedia ice hockey project. You have made your point, and now I hope that other interested editors will have their opportunity to be heard. Dolovis (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the World Championships. Not the World Junior Championships. And yes, when I say we, I mean we as the hockey project have routinely deleted this level of player. You just have to look at the hockey afd log to see that we go through this every 6 months. Once during the world junior championships and once during the draft. That being said I speak for no one. I only speak as to what the project has done in the past. And this is a discussion, as such its not one comment and done its back and forth. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Both of these guidelines clearly show that an athlete who plays at a junior level is not notable per WP standards. Let's WP:CHILL on this article until he graduates to a senior level of play. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior players can be notable if they win a significant individual award, but this subject has not met that standard. Being a member of a world junior championship team isn't enough for an article. Once the subject either wins a significant amateur award or plays professionally, then the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the standards of WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE, no evidence that the subject passes GNG. Playing professionally is notable. Playing on an Olympic team is notable. Playing in the junior leagues is not. Ravenswing 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on a World Championship junior men's team should be notable. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are certainly welcome to make that argument on the talk pages of the relevant guidelines to see if you can bring consensus over to your views. Ravenswing 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gordie Walker (father) (if it can be verified, ortherwise delete). Currently fails athlete in my interpretation. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above statement by Ottawa4ever. Redirect preserves article info for future when/if the subject plays professionally/becomes notable. Bhockey10 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a notable award. 2010 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in which he earned a gold medal.[3] Winning a gold metal at a notable sporting event, makes you notable. Dream Focus 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it makes the team as a whole notable, not the individual. Notability is not inheirited. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the individual members of the World Championship team are notable. Because it is a team of made up of all-stars from many different teams, the team itself is not notable; but the players are. This is not a children's team, it is made up of men who are 20 and under. Dolovis (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but due to the age restrictions on playing. ie no one older than 20 can play, it means it is not the highest level of amateur competition available which is what is required by WP:ATH for amateur athletes. The highest level is the World Championships (senior version) and the Olympics because anyone of any age can play in that tournament including juniors. -DJSasso (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Whether or not a member of the Gold Medal winning team is notable, Luke Walker meets the inclusion criteria per WP:GNG. Walker has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He is therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article:
[[18]] (full article on Walker published in independent newspaper)
[[19]] (full article on Walker published in independent newspaper)
[[20]] (webpage devoted to information about Walker)
[[21]] (webpage devoted to information about Walker)
[[22]] (webpage devoted to information about Walker)
[[23]] (webpage devoted to information about Walker)
[[24]] (webpage devoted to information about Walker)

Now I expect that some editors will argue that all hockey players have web pages devoted to their stats, and that may even be true - but more than that (and what pushes it over the top for WP:GNG) are the articles published in the newspapers where Walker is the main topic. This is more than what is required for GNG, as GNG does not require the subject to be the main topic of the source material. Countless other articles with trivial and more mentions can be found, but it is not necessary for this discussion as the threshold for inclusion has already been met. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first two qualify as coverage of him, as stats sites are considered not good enough to establish notability of an athlete. The first two fall under WP:BLP1E in that it is one media blast about his going to the US national team. WP:GNG does actually require the subject to be the main topic of what is being covered, it can't just be a passing mention. It has to be a full blown article about them. And there has to be multiple ones about multiple events. And generally local media coverage is not considered good enough either (which the first two are), otherwise millions of high school athletes would be allowed articles. -DJSasso (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You agree that the first two articles qualify as coverage of Walker, and you also agree that these articles are not "passing mentions". Your non-argument befuddles me. There are multiple accounts (do I need to post more links? Here's another: [25] ) and you can not disregard the articles just because they are not in a national newspaper like USA Today. If that were the policy then few articles would qualify. There is no wiki-guideline that says "local media coverage is not considered good enough", and in any event, since the coverage is included on the Internet it makes it more than regional coverage. Concerning your reference to WP:BLP1E, I can not locate the policy that you are alluding to. Perhaps you can supply a quote for me. GNG is clear on what "Significant coverage" means, and it is clear that Walker meets this criteria. As for the inclusion of “millions of high school athletes”, (1) WP:NOTPAPER, and (2) each article needs to be individually reviewed to see if it meets a criteria for inclusion, but I think that it is safe to say that you may be exaggerating. Dolovis (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it needs to be in a national paper. I said that papers local to the individual are generally not considered good enough. In other words a player who lives/plays in Kelowna, BC is going to have news stories about them and that there is a perceived lack of independence to papers covering local citizens so in other words they fail "significant coverage in multiple independent sources". So articles that would not have that problem would be any paper not from Kelowna. So say a local paper in Kingston, ON. WP:ATH is a pretty good bright line test of what is needed for a player. Yes GNG overrides it usually, but this individual has yet to meet it. An example of the local concept is politicians. Most local politicians have huge amounts of coverage in their local newspaper(s), but don't qualify for an article on wikipedia unless they do something that put them in the news in other cities. -DJSasso (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums that runs "It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we don't agree with what you're saying." (1) Those websites shouldn't even be cited as an attempt to establish them as reliable sources - why are they raised in this debate at all? (2) The first one is a relatively trivial mention from a website; do we even know that this was published? (3) The second cite is of respectable length ... and it comes from a newspaper from a town no larger than the neighborhood in which I live. Go find us a couple sizeable articles in the Oregonian and we'll see. Ravenswing 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Djsasso, this [26] is an article on Walker from "OurSports Central", an international sporting news organization that is not from Kelowna. He's notable per GNG. Dolovis (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OurSportsCentral only sends out press releases. Look at the bottom of the link "The opinions expressed in this release are those of the organization issuing it, and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of OurSports Central or its staff.". Sorry, this link doesn't show GNG, just that the Portlant Winterhawks composed a press release about one of their players. Patken4 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about trying "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals," as GNG states? We are just not going to accept Some Website Somewhere as a reliable source. Honestly, this AfD isn't any sort of contest, and no prizes are given out for "winning." Like (I daresay) other editors, my opinion on this will budge if I see articles of substantial length which are about Luke Walker. Like (I daresay) the other Delete advocates, I'm not changing my opinion for websites, blogs or press releases, however many of them come out. By the bye, did you stop to examine these hits you're dredging up? The alleged Oregonian article is almost a word-for-word copy of that press release. That alleged local article is largely a paraphrase of the same. Given that, I can't see that there are any legitimate cites for this subject. Ravenswing 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Those links help article building and information but most of the stat pages don't equal notability. With the popularity and ease of webpage building, mite through Adult rec leagues have pages with player stats. Bhockey10 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[27] This article says he won a gold medal. Did everyone on the team get a gold medal, or just this one guy? He gets ample news coverage anyway, as Dolovis pointed out. He was also chosen by a major Hockey team, the Colorado Avalanche, to play for them. Should we delete an article just to recreate it after he starts playing? That'd be stupid. Dream Focus 08:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're aware, of course, how many 5th round draft choices never make it to the big leagues. I can't count how many people have argued against WP:CRYSTAL over the years at AfD, convinced that those people would of course Make It ... only to have those subjects never be heard from again. Yes, indeed, Walker would qualify for an article should he play in the NHL. But going back to the 1999 Entry Draft, only 5 out of 31 ever played so much as a game in the NHL. In 2000, it's been 10 of 36. In 2001, 9 of 33. Fifth rounders are, in fact, longshots, and what would be stupid is to create an article for a player who probably will never qualify. Ravenswing 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All 22 members of the team won gold medals, not just Walker. Patken4 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we appear to have sources, well no-one challenged them anyway Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Movement for a Just World

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

Not notable. Nat Miller (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NGO founded by the president of a country is certainly notable. The problem is probably a lack of sources in English. More information could be added with translation since it must have been covered in Malayasian newspapers. Better to keep as a stub for now rather than delete. Borock (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Malaysia does not have a president. The current Yang di-Pertuan Agong (head of state) is Mizan Zainal Abidin. The current Prime Minister (head of government) is Najib Tun Razak. --Nat Miller (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The article was talking about the president of the group, not the country. Then I would say delete for now until sources are found and (probably) translated. Borock (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability. --Quelle Jessen (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant and frequent coverage in reliable sources over a long time in both Malaysian and international media.[28] Here are the non-payperview articles for enjoyment.[29] --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very poorly written, has no references, and not notable. --Werewolf Bar Mitzvah (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LibStar (don't say that very often!). Alzarian16 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afghan training camp. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talukan training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning by one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article are already present in the article Yusef Abdullah Saleh Al Rabiesh. IQinn (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut Bakram training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [30] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the absolutely wrong bad faith accusations and ad hominum part of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times.

Coming to the content issue:

Comment - This particular camp here is not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that User Geo Swan has provided elsewhere. [31] (The graph that he has placed in his comment here is taken from this report.)

This source list all notable and even the less notable training camps. That Talukan training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until there is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Wei (Chinese artist)

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

Seems to be a clear hoax. The article relied on six sources:

Christoph Noe (Ed), Xenia Piech (Ed), Cordelia Steiner (Ed), Young Chinese Artists: The Next Generation, 2008. - No mention of Zhang Wei in the book
Mario Ciampi, Philip Tinari, Artists in China: Inside the Contemporary Studio, 2007. - Also no mention
Asia Pacific Art Magazine, July 2008 - Searched the journal for instances of Wei and Zhang. Could find nothing that looked at all like the subject.
[32] - Talks about a Zhang Wei who was arrested in China, but he was a journalist, and was still imprisoned as of 2008.
Chinese art exhibit is highly political - Quote attributed to Zhang Wei in the WP article is actually by Britta Erickson. No mention of Zhang Wei in the source.
Able Art '99 at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum - No mention of Zhang Wei. Material claimed to be about him in the article refers to different artists.

The editor had previously created one article, Wu Junyong, which seems valid, but may have been used to lend credibility to this one. Both the tone and manner of the sourcing reminds me of certain breaching experiments. - Bilby (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either a hoax, or fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Claritas § 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afghan training camp. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kut Bakram training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning by one sources does not add up to "Significant coverage". The little information in the article are already present in the article Khalid Saeed Ahmad al Zahrani IQinn (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No independent sources = no notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am very concerned that the nominator has not seen fit to disclose the full situation WRT to this article and the other {{afd}} they recently initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talukan training camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Saiaf training camp. Our nominator is well aware that I drafted a proposal, over three months ago -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I started most of these articles in 2006 and 2007, thinking more references would emerge. I acknowledged in my proposal, three months ago, that, for most of the articles, insufficient references had emerged. I suggested merging, back then. I offered background on these articles, back when our nominator nominated the Al Fand training camp for deletion in early June [33] -- background which our nominator has chosen not to share here. In another similar {{afd}} our nominator made in mid June I responded to the suggestion that all the information present in that article was present in the article on the captive alleged to have trained at the camp, and thus that article could safely be deleted, undermined the value of the wikipedia for readers who are trying to study the phenomenon of the training camps. Fully one third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified based, in part, on the allegation that they received military training at one of these camps. This is an important phenomenon, in and of itself. If this camp, and many of the other camps, don't have enough information to support a separate article, they should not be deleted, they should be redirected and merged into an article on the camps. I can't explain why our nominator didn't choose to inform readers of this {{afd}} of the previous proposals. Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the absolutely wrong bad faith accusations and ad hominum part of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times.

Coming to the content issue:

Comment - This particular camp here is not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that User Geo Swan has provided elsewhere. [34] (The graph that he has placed in his comment here is taken from this report.)

This source list all notable and even the less notable training camps. That Kut Bakram training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until there is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article creator hasn't found additional references in the three years since creation, it is time to stop waiting. I'm sympathetic to merging, if anyone wants to do it, but if the article creator isn't going to do it, I'm not asking the closing sysop to do it. An alternative would be to userfy (with "no-index") if someone offers to take them on to merge at a more leisurely pace. One reference is not sufficient for notability.--SPhilbrick T 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Geo. Have the same concerns he raises, as well, re nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 01:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water safety in New Zealand

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

Reads like a school essay and fails WP:HOWTO (Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or guidebook). Much rather clumsy original research based on statistics. Most of the 'advice' is not specific to New Zealand. We should have an article on the historical prevalence of drowning in New Zealand, but not with this title. dramatic (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
So why didn't you just rename it to the title that it should have had, and write without mercy? You've expended more effort, and more time, with an AFD nomination than you would have done just boldly doing a rename and refactor back in May 2010. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. If, as the article alleges, water safety is a particular concern in New Zealand, I can't think of a better title, myself. Without being able to look at the sources myself, I can't say much there, but with a better lede this could turn into a proper article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is written by someone not yet familiar with Wikipedia's style of writing, New Zealand's efforts to reduce the number of drownings is most certainly notable. I think that the title is just fine, and I agree with the nominator that "we should have an article on the historical prevalence of drowning in New Zealand". I disagree with statements that this is "clumsy original research" or that it's entirely a how to (or maybe a "how not to drown"). Maybe it had been a school essay, but it's certainly a good start on a Wikipedia article. Mandsford 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Byrnes

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

Proposed for deletion because: "Non notable photographer. Has contributed photos for the band of her lover, is mentioned as such very briefly in one independent reliable source (the Toronto Sun article linked below). Also interviewed in one Transworld Business article, but not about herself but as marketing director of Thrasher. The other book she has worked on hasn't brought her any attention in reliable independent sources either, which means that she fails WP:BIO." Prod removed, but page has not been improved. Fram (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find enough coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. We're told Vans: Off the Wall by Doug Palladini tells the story of the community of action sports legends, musicians, artists and trendsetters that helped to define laid back California style as we know it. First run, 2009 edition includes includes 365 full color illustrations. Photo Edited by Lindsey Byrnes but the source for this leads to a mildly interesting (despite superfluous and cheesy guitar) video about shoe production and has nothing about any book, community, laying back, style, illustrations, photos, or Byrnes. All very mysterious. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, the article is a BLP that has no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in WP:RS. Vartanza (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principia Proportionality

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

Non-notable pseudo-physics. Very few ghits, non of which are reliable in any way. (Earlier {{prod}} removed by User:67.33.162.175.) Wasell^(T) 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such material is open to challenge and so reliable sources are essential. An earlier version of the article had a link to a YouTube presentation (rightly removed) but this also gave no clues as to sources. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the article's sole author, and that of the YouTube presentation to which it's linked. Neither violate Wikipedia Policy. The article is open to challenge and discussion. I welcome it. I have hyperlinked much of the article's terminology to other sources within Wikipedia to better illustrate my simple, straight-forward proposal. I cannot source current dogma which believes in 'messenger particles', 'multiple-dimensions', 'parallel universes', 'strings', or 'branes'. Nor will I wallpaper the article with senseless equations, filled with mathematical emoticons, to dazzle, confound, and intimidate people into believing 2+2 might = 5. It doesn't, regardless of the amount of 'documentation', interest, or mutual-admiration it garners. Careers have been made, institutions built, and billions spent in endeavors which history will judge unkindly. I believe it is the highest aspiration of Wikipedia to chronicle the evolution of human thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenlenane (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR and shameless self-promotion. Owen× ☎ 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, not notable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'article's sole author' seems to have been pushing this apparent pseudoscience since 1997 (see here for example) and has yet to excite any interest, even on Usenet. –Syncategoremata (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries bordering the Arab League

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

This unsourced list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of countries. There is no significance to this particular list of countries, nor are there any sources which discuss this group of countries based on the fact that they border Arab countries. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SnottyWong ^confer 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat interesting and even important, but as the nominator said not an encyclopedic topic. Borock (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Nat Miller (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how a list of countries bordering a group of countries is article-worthy. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it is clear that it is implied that they are on the "front line" against Muslim expansion. Still OR however, for the purpose of WP. (Note that I am assuming good faith and taking your "I can't see..." as literal.)Borock (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it had context showing that there's concern in these nations about a repeat the "Moors and Tours" era, I could see some merit (although I don't think that one could find it even if it was looked for). This one is more of an excuse for "flags and tags", more of an geographic exercise than anything. Mandsford 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, i can see that alot of people are against this article, which i find as very suitable for anyone wanting to know the cuontries that border the arab league, which would make them understand the conflict, and ties between these states, and the Arab League as an organization, especially since the Arab league has recently adopted a policy to create a forum between it (the Arab League) and its bordering states... but if it is decided to be deleted, i think merging it into the georgraphy of the Arab League page would seem more appropriate.... wouldnt you think?

Arab League User (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't really see any use for this info anywhere. It's really not notable and it is exceedingly obvious to anyone who knows how to read a map. If there is some notable connection between two countries, then that connection should be explained in either the countries' articles or in a bilateral relations article for the two countries. Otherwise, the fact that they border each other is not particularly relevant on its own. Also, your definition of "border" is pretty strange. Can we really say that France borders Morocco and Algeria? There is 400+ miles of water between France and Algeria at their closest points, and Morocco is even further away. SnottyWong ^confabulate 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, it IS relevant ofcourse, i only added the article to inform the readers of the countries bordering the Organization, pretty much like the European Union article, or the African Union article for bordering nations...

especially that the Arab League is creating the Arab Neighboring policy...

Delete Seems like a rather indiscriminate list, especially since the article is unreferenced and demonstrates no coverage or significance of the topic, and I couldn't find any coverage elsewhere. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely falls under "indiscriminate list", and probably original research. If sources are found showing a reason for such a collection, then it should be part of the Arab League article. First Light (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Enigma^msg 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still for delete. However when editors pretend to be stupid it looks bad. Any reasonable person is going to understand the reason this article was created. Borock (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this editor, at least, it was a lack of reliable sources showing a notable or sufficient reason to have an article about this list. Which leaves me puzzling whether I'm not so stupid after all, still just pretending to be stupid, or even worse: so stupid that people think I'm pretending when I'm really being serious :-o. This article by the same editor has related problems ("It (The Arab League) has an area of 14 million km², making it second only to the Russian Federation...").First Light (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was even worse before. The articles he created are poor, there are problems with most of the images, and the username itself poses problems. Enigma^msg 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed, unfortunately. I've removed the comparison of the Arab League to the Russian Federation, since one is a country and the other is a bunch of countries (apples and oranges), along with a few other obvious issues on some of his other articles (List of largest cities of the Arab League, Demographics of the Arab League. But yes, it's a bit of a mess. First Light (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing In Action (band)

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

delete non notable band. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find any reliable sources with info on them. Sunray (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (Doctor Who)

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

Zythe said it well in the initial prod notice, "This is fancruft with zero value to Wikipedia. Doctor Who Wiki covers this sort of thing very well, for editors (like myself!) who enjoy reading them but, regrettably, know they don't belong on Wikipedia." Per the discussion at the Doctor Who Wikiproject talk page, there is no consensus to create this article (or the related article on the Moon) without strong out-of-universe content, rather than just plot details. Ckatz^chat _spy 03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This is a typical type of article to see on Wikipedia, I see no problem. --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, this is suitable for Wikipedia.Acather96 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the list article List of Doctor Who planets. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- my first instinct was to trash it, but since it's mostly a list article tying together various episode articles, there's no reason to delete it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a list article, and it would only serve to attract fancruft. More importantly, there was no consensus at the Doctor Who project page to create this article without a demonstration of real-world sources to add encyclopedic content, yet the creator went ahead and did it anyway. The information in the article can easily be summarized in the existing entry at List of Doctor Who planets#E. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unsourced fancruft consisting of nothing but in-universe plot summary and really pointless WP:TRIVIA. Reyk _YO! 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This unsourced attempt at a timeline of the Earth's history, pasted together from various Doctor Who serials, only pretends coherence where there ultimately isn't any. Canon isn't exactly Doctor Who's strong suit, particularly given the 40 odd years of serials by different authors... And the science fiction element of Doctor Who gives its fiction the ability to be "wrong." I'd wager that the 400 million BCE date for the start of life in City of Death, for example, is not elsewhere repeated in another Doctor Who serial; the WP article even notes that the show's producer called that a blunder. At any rate, this is at best a content fork from Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, which by contrast has sources, is substantively written, and actually comments on contradictions within the show and between writers. So even assuming at best that this is a valid enterprise, I see no cause for splitting that chronology by location and no separate content in this that justifies its existence. A list of Doctor Who serials set on Earth (ordered by broadcast date) may accomplish the same goal as this, only much more capably. postdlf (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N and WP:PLOT, the notability of any single fictional work's conception of the planet Earth is not sufficient enough for an independent article. Imagine the following similar cases: London (Charles Dickens), New York (Ayn Rand) and St. Petersberg (Dostoevsky)..... Claritas § 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to imagine the first of these - the topic is so notable and well documented that the article fairly begged to be written. I leave the other two cases as an exercise for others. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in WP:N and WP:PLOT do you think it states what you assert? It's one thing to determine that this article fails; it's another to somehow pull an absolute out of the air that it is impossible for a kind of topic to be notable. You're also equivocating "any single fictional work's conception" of a topic with the conception of a topic across multiple fictional works. Doctor Who is a media franchise, comprising 40+ years of TV serials and novels, each of which is a separate work of fiction written by multiple writers. Each novel by Ayn Rand or Dickens would also be a separate work of fiction, obviously. I think it's quite possible for a valid article to be written on Dickens' depiction of London in his many works of fiction, for example. And even if we were talking about just one work of fiction, it's still possible for multiple articles about it to be written. See the articles in Category:Hamlet, for example. Such a sweeping, conclusory statement as you have made, apart from being completely unsupported by any policy or guideline, just suggests that your !vote is ideologically motivated rather than based on an evaluation of this particular article and subject. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable. I have added another citation and made a start on improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just discovered Earth in fiction, which looks kind of like it was assembled out of a hodgepodge of attempts at articles like this one. No opinion on its merits, but it's there for now at least as a potential merge target, in addition to Chronology of Doctor Who and List of Doctor Who planets. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespecting the police

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

It starts out with a hatnote that the article is about "the worldwide legal term". Only problem is, this isn't a world wide legal term. The article does have some references, but the article is really nothing more than WP:SYNTH or a WP:COATRACK. It merely puts together a few First Amendment cases and arrives at some legal conclusions. Article is filled with weasel words. I don't see a re-write helping. It's not a topic sufficiently different from the better written article Contempt of cop. The weak attempt to throw in a case from Uzbekistan doesn't really help it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the above, this is mostly a thinly-veiled synthesis about the USAn First Amendment. JIP | Talk 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Contempt of cop. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is not commonly used in reliable sources. Even the four Google books results that use those three words together do so not as an official term, but only in context. First Light (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ash (Alien), redirect others to List of Alien characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (Alien)

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

Declined PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable character from a single film, completely covered in film article. No indication of significance." Reason for decline was "consider redirect or merge". This is unacceptable because (A) there would be no point to a redirect, partly due to the ridiculous dab in the title, and (B) there is nothing to merge and nowhere to merge it; all of the pertinent info on the characters and their roles is already contained in Alien (film)...there is nothing new or useful in this article, which consists of 100% plot regurgitation. This article and those below were created by cutting-and-pasting from List of Alien characters. Nothing new was added except for infoboxes. Content should not be moved in this way, and these characters do not warrant separate articles...that was the impetus behind creating a character list article in the first place. None of these characters have had any appearances outside of the film Alien, nor are they given significant coverage in reliable secondary sources outside the context of that single film to warrant independent articles.
I am also nominating the following related pages for identical reasons. All were created by the same editor in the same manner, none merit independent articles:

--IllaZilla (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the character list. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Redirecting is pointless, as these are copied directly from the character list. Also they are highly unlikely search terms due to the ridiculous disambiguation in the title, and absolutely nothing in article space links to them. No one is going to type "Lambert (Alien)" into a search. They're likely to just type "Lambert", or at best "Lambert (character)" if they understand WP's dab'ing system, which the majority of non-editing readers don't. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you point to a hypertext anchor at each character's entry in the list, the redirects can be used in piped links, wherever people might drop a link. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. If someone writes a major book analysing one of the characters we can create a real-world-focus article about it then. dramatic (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem like a good candidate for the most poorly researched rationale today. A major book that will be written at some indefinite point in the future? There are quite a number of books covering this film in extensive detail that already exist, having been published long since during the past 30 years, as a mere 30 seconds' effort expended with Google Books would have revealed. I know because I expended the 30 seconds of effort — and then regretted it for the next few hours. ☺ I recommend always expending that 30 seconds of effort before writing an AFD rationale. Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the reasons given above, and also because this copy-paste editing is a copyright infringement: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ash per recent expansion, delete rest unless similarly expanded. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. Then do whatever Uncle G recommends with the rest. He seems to know the subject best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erk! I make no such claim to authority. I just happen to have helped work on related articles such as Final girl (AfD discussion) in the past, and have encountered some of the source material before. I also note, as above, that after the simplest of Google Books searches Ash (Alien) is a no-brainer. I have no comment, as yet, on the rest, simply because one's enough for today. Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as PROD decliner. Nom makes an overwhelming argument against a merge that was not obvious at the time, but the fact remains that these can be valid/useful search terms. If they were indeed cut/pasted from the list, then they should be deleted as GFDL violations. Still, a redirect is perfectly acceptable, and in my opinion preferable, to leaving nothing behind at all. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lot, per the improvements made and the documented probabilities for more. The ones that aren't up to snuff can be redirected without prejudice until properly expanded. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete all except, Ash (Alien), as completely unnotable, useless redirects and inappropriate copy/pasting from main list. Fix name of Ash (Alien), and do appropriate clean up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, none of these characters have proven real notability, with deep coverage by reliable secondary sources discussing the characters independently from the film. Also, neither of them has impact in popular culture or become a cultural icon, like Jabba the Hutt, Mickey Mouse, Homer Simpson, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per User:Uncle G who, as usual, has taken the trouble to inform himself. It is remarkable that other editors have difficulty finding sources when, as Uncle G observes, they are so abundant. See for example, Synthetics, Humanity and the Life Force in the Alien Quartet, The Fractures of Desire: Psychoanalytic Notes on ALIEN and the Contemporary “Cruel” Horror Film or Alien: Can an android reason, problem solve and be conscious?. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~all~~ Ash and any others that are so improved As recent suberb improvement and sourcing of Ash (Alien) indicates that improvement is indeed possible... and kudus to User:Uncle G for turning on the light and illuminating the darkness. If the others are not improved, they can be relisted. Time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly applaud UngleG's improvements to the Ash article, however I also strongly feel that the critical analysis being added would be better suited to the Alien (film) article itself, as its FA review specifically called for more content of exactly this type. Building a separate character article first for a character that only appears in 1 work is putting the cart before the horse. I therefore now favor mergeing the (now much improved) Ash (Alien) into Alien (film). As for the other articles, however, I still strongly endorse deletion as I do not see evidence that they could be similarly expanded. The sources that have been added, while excellent, cover the entire film , and therefore would be better applied to the article about the film as a whole. Precedent, if I'm not mistaken, has shown that fictional characters that only appear in a single work should be covered in the article about the work, unless/until the coverage becomes extensive enough that a summary style split seems like a good idea. Like I said, cart before the horse. The sources added would be a huge improvement to Alien (film), and would contribute to better coverage of the topic as a whole. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that "keep all" !votes ignore the fact that 5 of the 6 nominated articles are still directly copy/pasted from List of Alien characters, and the content is thus misattributed. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G has shown by his excellent example that this may be addressed by ordinary editing. I have made a start on the other characters by editing Dallas to a sourced stub and will attend to the others as time permits. The list article is irrelevant to this process as it contains no sourced content and so it might as well be knocked down to a navigational list of articles because an unsourced compendium of character articles is inferior to the same material broken out in the manner of the Ash article. By taking each character separately, we are encouraged to do a proper job while the character's names are superior as article titles, being better for navigation, search and cross-linking. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G has only shown that 1 of the 6 characters have received significant secondary source coverage. While I certainly applaud him for it, the other 5 characters remain question marks. Your edits to Dallas reduced it down to a 2-sentence stub that merely repeats his role in the plot (which now makes 3 places on WP that this character's plot summary is covered: the film article, the character list article, now a separate article). This certaily doesn't demonstrate that the article could be expanded in the same way as the Ash article. As for editing, no amount of editing can fix the fact that the initial versions of these articles are misattributed to Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) due to his copy/pasting. You can't fix misattribution through regular editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:CWW#Repairing insufficient attribution explains that "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted". Also, I have continued to expand the article about Dallas and experienced no special difficulty in doing so. This certainly demonstrates that further improvement may be made in accordance with our editing policy which also requires that we keep such additions. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my earlier point that you are not fully appreciating the extent that Kaldari's "a lot" denotes. As I said, there appears to me to be enough to almost certainly support articles of this length for Ash, Ellen Ripley, and Bishop. From the additional material that I read in order to write about Ash, I suspect that there might be enough to write about Lambert standalone, too. Although that one I would start off as a section expansion at List of Alien characters, because it is less certain than the others. However, there is material in sources that exceeds our current treatment of that character by a fair margin, not least noting the difference between the stereotypical empathic passive female of Lambert and the hard-edged, logical, and ruthless Ripley. Similarly, sources discuss more about Parker than we do, the stuff that I encountered (but wasn't primarily looking for) mainly dealing with the racial connotations of a black male versus a white female. That, again, I'd start as a section expansion.
Again, what's in Ash (Alien) is the character-specific stuff. When it comes to the film as a whole, there's a lot of further material that isn't so character-specific (such as the aforemented Ash→Bishop→Call progression analysis) that isn't in Ash (Alien) and that in fact isn't yet anywhere in Wikipedia at all, that will fill up the overall film article(s) without need for merging in the Ash, Ripley, and Bishop character articles, all (especially the latter two) of which should definitely be viewed with a mindset of expansion, not one of contraction and merger. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note, for clarity, that I have no disagreement with junking the bogus unattributed copies and pastes, that haven't been touched at all, subject to the proviso that it is without prejudice to future articles that are done properly. After all, I did junk all of the prior content at Ash (Alien). Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, too, for clarity, that I have no prejudice against future articles that are done properly (ie. that make some claim to notability of the character, that have some manner of sources to back up that claim, that aren't just repetition of plot, and that aren't just copy/pasted content from another article). However, given that both an article on the film and a character list article both already exist, launching separate articles for each individual character (as Jake Picasso did) without adding any additional content or sources is entirely the wrong way to go about this. There is a natural way that topics of this type grow and expand: We start with the article Alien (film), covering in it all of the significant detail about the characters. If the information about the characters grows to the point where it seems to warrant splitting, we have List of Alien characters, an article devoted specifically to characters from the films, where that information can move to and continue to expand. Then if there are individual characters about whom so much source material exists that they seem to merit stand-alone articles, those can be spun out too (Ellen Ripley being the most obviouse example, as the central character of the entire franchise). The natural progression of article growth and creation is Film article → character list → stand-alone articles (see WP:SS, in particular WP:AVOIDSPLIT); this is the best process for developing well-written and comprehensive articles. When misguided editors skip straight to creating a bunch of stand-alone spinout articles, as Jake Picasso has done, we are inevitably left with a bunch of plot-repeating unreferenced stubs that are likely to remain that way for years, if not forever. Inevitably, through merging and redirecting, we wind up going through the whole process in reverse: merging the character articles into a list and, when that article is never improved and remains just another plot repository for years, merging it back into the film articles.

I should note that at one point we had unreferenced stubs of exactly these types for every marine and every weapon from Aliens; all were inevitably merged into the character list or redirected to the film article. That's why I nominated these articles for deletion: they were merely plagiarized from another WP article and gave no indication of a potential for improvement. Uncle G has demonstrated that some of these characters have received broader coverage in secondary sources, and I certainly have no objection to information on these characters being expanded from such sources. But it would be greatly preferrable if the information were expanded in the manner described above (content added to the film article first, then out to the character list if it seems to warrant more space, and finally consideration of stand-alone articles for the most notable characters). At this point the Ash article has been improved to a point where the content indeed shouldn't be deleted, though whether it remains a separate article entirely may change through future editing (and in any case it certainly ought to be moved to a different dab). A couple of referenced sentences have been added to the Dallas article, and IMO that content ought to move over to the film article. The remaining 4 can (and IMO should) still be deleted outright. Nothing would be lost, as it is merely copy/pasted content from another existing article, and again it does not demonstrate any prejudice against coverage of these character on Wikipedia, as there are already 2 other articles (the film article and character list) which devote coverage to these characters. If editors wish to expand on these characters, they are certainly welcome to do so in both the film article and character list, and there will be no prejudice against future splits if the depth of coverage and sources seem to warrant it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ash, redirect the rest Of all the characters Ash was always going to be the most notable (in terms of attention from the stroky-beard types, not WP's guideline), and we now have an interesting article thanks to Uncle G's efforts. They should remain contained in that character list until someone chooses to put the legwork in and expand them beyond that, assuming that each of them are genuinely notable and have received enough coverage. Someone another 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ash, redirect the rest aka Redirect all but ash which appears to be the emerging consensus. Can't WP:verifynotability for any except for ash. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ash, redirect all others - Ash seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, passing WP:GNG, but there's no indication of that for any of the others. Claritas § 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garner

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

Non-notable figure; full of external links; created by an account with the same name as his mission (what a surprise). Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is spammy due to the COI edits, but here, for example, is an article on Garner from the Sydney Morning Herald: [35]. I found what looks like a decent amount of coverage of both Garner and the Wesley Mission in the Herald and well as other Australian media outlets like ABC News [36] and the AAP [37]. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May possibly be notable, but the article as it is written so breaches WP:NPOV and WP:COI to be unsalvageable. It is blatant and unrepentent self-promotion by some one involved in the Wesley Mission. Better to delete this ~~article~~ advertisement and let someone else start again from scratch if they wish. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but not an IT expert. This is not an attempt at self promotion. In fact just the opposite. The email address is because I asked a member of my team to help me by putting in a piece of information. We shall not make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 June 2010 — WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I'm finding your comments confusing: who are "we" and what "team" are we talking about? If you are affiliated with the subject of this article, it's not really appropriate for you to be participating in this deletion discussion and you should avoid editing the article. Please see Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Mattinbgn. Wesley Mission is clearly notable, but it's not clear that Keith Garner is. The article is also a WP:BLP lacking 3rd party references, and has several style problems. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"dont delete" subject spoke at a conference i attended and is constantly in the media , requiring independant research links outside organisational bio's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyandbeck (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (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 keep per cleanup by Supes--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flux Family Secrets

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

Ad by COI account for non-notable game Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per Non notable, and COI --Rockstonetalk to me! 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, this article can be edited to meet Wikipedia's standards. I've edited Flux Family Secrets: The Ripple Effect, an article that is of similar subject created by the same user who created the article we are discussing, to remove ad-like content and establish notability until I brought it to what I believe is of appropriate quality. It's not perfect, but it's perfect enough for inclusion IMO. While Flux Family Secrets is currently written like an advertisement from someone with a COI, there's nothing stopping anyone from improving the article, so I don't think that, by itself, that's a good reason for deletion when it's got potential. I myself am willing and would like to edit the article to fix any problems, as I did with the one I previously mentioned, hopefully within the next day or two. I'd do it now, but it's past midnight. Go figure. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment I've updated the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per my edit to the page. I've updated the page to meet concerns brought up in both this discussion and the tags on the page, among other things. Notability has been established and the article no longer reads like an advertisement. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources look good to me. SharkD Talk 01:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as spam/promotional article

Gregg Gilmore

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

Few or no reliable sources provided, very little yielded by Google hit. JNW (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting as spam/promo created by a single-purpose account, now blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lionshare

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd Afd, first resulted in no consensus. Non-notable film, fails WP:MOVIE, no V/RS listed. GregJackP (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this, there are numerous reliable sources listed in the first AfD.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - where? #1 - Rougecinema is a user written site, not a reliable source. #2 - Critic's Word is a blog, not reliable. #3 - The Independent Critic is a blog, not reliable. #4 - Torrent Freak, blog, not reliable. #5 - FrostClick, blog, not reliable. GHits/GNews have not turned up any reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable. And I think the IMDB page is quite reliable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable per the standards, with very limited exceptions. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is one of those exceptions. The sources listed are critical reviews posted on movie review sites in a professional capacity.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MOVIE all sources are trivial. Please read the guideline which excludes: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database" Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is listed in the IMDB, and those reviews do provide critical commentary.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline exludes IMBD as a notability source. Read the guideline and see if you can find some souces to support notability. I can not. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NF - IMDb is specifically excluded from reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your phrasing on the IMDB, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the sources in the article provide critical commentary on the film and aren't trivial.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't change the fact that you need to show notability by verifiable and reliable sources. I can't find any, and I've looked. GregJackP (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my earlier comment; the sources in the article do meet the criteria of reliability.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article meets the criteria of WP:NF by being "featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema" and "'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program" based on 'The Lionshare' is academic which is reliable per WP:SELFPUB.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: This film has been reviewed by someone who is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS).
  --Gyrobo (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an award-winning indie film reviewed/discussed by several reliable sources. Sure, the article may need more sourcing and work, but a poorly-written or incomplete article does not make the subject non-notable. I'm going to take a look and see if I can fix up the article a bit, hopefully that will help. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my !vote in the first AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources. Reviews given do not appear to be from reliable sources.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any reason for deletion of this article. IMDB is a reliable source. bcartolo (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:NF, IMDB is not so reliable, and as it's a database it cannot be used to establish notability (it is considered trivial coverage).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:MOVIE as significant reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be found for this movie. I went through three different search engines and reviewed 300 listings. IMDb seems to be its reference and not the one I would hang my article's hat for notability or sourcing on. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale HaShalom

AfDs for this article:

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

It's just a street. No indication of notability. Source given is a passing reference to its existence. PROD removed by original editor. PamD (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just don't see how the road that half surrounds Mount Zion is "just a street." Even just by its location indicates historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes it is a street but a very important one indeed. It forms the southern boundary to the Old City of Jerusalem, with two of the eight open gates to the Old City located along this street. Altogether, there is a lot of history here. This picture shows how busy of a street it is trafficwise. Linda Olive (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, any sources to support these claims of importance? A photo showing that a street is busy is entirely irrelevant, there are literally millions of busy streets on this earth. A map proving the street exists and is where the article says it is is nice for verification but we need some sources that actually discuss the street itself and explain it's significance. Proper sourcing is the problem in 95% of all deletion debates and the main reason articles are deleted. Simply insisting that it's notable without providing any evidence doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do keep in mind that "Ma'ale HaShalom" is only one variation of the Latin character spelling of this modern Hebrew name. According to several sources, the pre-Israel Arab name was "Ain el-loza" and this again is only a Latin variation spelling of the Arabic name. A street so central in a city that dates back literally thousands of years likely had multiple names with many spellings in multiple languages. This makes 21st century web research difficult.--Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in college in Jerusalem more than 20 years ago, I took some courses on the history of Jerusalem, one of that described the history of many of the city's streets. I do not have the textbook that had all the information I would have wanted to provide. I do remember this street having a different name. I had forgotten what it was. Thank you Oakshade for reminding me. Agreed, there are surely lots of sources out there, but not with either of these spellings with English letters. Linda Olive (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an extremely important street in the history of an extremely important city. Raisescale (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Yea, we've already established that people feel that it is a very important street. Now what we need is some verification of that. It seems most of the "keep" arguments are based on the feeling that there must be some sources somewhere. I'm willing to accept that possibility, but unless and until somebody actually cares enough to find those sources all we have to go on is "feelings" which are obviously not sufficient and cannot be considered as reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried using Google translate to come up with the Hebrew name so I could check the Hebrew Wikipedia, unfortunately the machine translation doesn't appear to be accurate enough for a match, the words I got back apparently meant "up the peace." If we could find a user who is fluent in Hebrew they could probably help shed some light on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt's essentially an extension of Ophel st. There are not too much references for the name "maale hashalom' since it must be a new street name. In HE google, most of the dozens of highly ranked references with that name are about the street being closed due to the Pope's visits. Ophel returns many more substantial links. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I've found about most of the streets in Jerusalem, including this one. Most of them are physically one street that changes names every few blocks. Many are notable, but determining how to name the article or finding sources is difficult. The names translated into English also can be spelled many different ways. I've been planning on writing articles about every street in Jerusalem that doesn't have one, and this has been the main challenge. Linda Olive (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been poking around trying to find a Hebrew speaker to help us out with this, and now here you are! If you could identify some WP:RS in those links and post them either here or, even better, in the article that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: I think that if you're "planning on writing articles about every street in Jerusalem that doesn't have one" then you need to think carefully what content there is going to be in those articles. Existence of a street doesn't imply notability (as far as I know), and you need to tell us why the street is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. All this one does is to tell us where it is. PamD (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally with that. I realize Jerusalem is not just another city, but even so there are only so many streets that are notable unto themselves. Passing by notable locations does not automatically confer notability on a street. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —msh210℠ 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone above asked for the name of the street in Hebrew. It's "מעלה השלום". (No opinion on the merits.)—msh210℠ 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this, and my inclination was to delete as notability hasn't been established. However, as there are five people keen on keeping this article it seems appropriate to give this AfD another seven days for those five people (or any others) to establish notability by finding reliable sources, and if notability cannot be established within that time then delete. No prejudice against someone starting up the article later when reliable sources have been found which can explain why it is considered notable. SilkTork *^YES! 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been using Google Image Search to look at old maps. It seems that this street is of relatively humble, recent origins. This 1883 map shows no road south of the Dung Gate. This 1912 map shows a road there, but note the near absence of buildings. No old maps bother identifying it. If sources are provided, recreation is of course an option. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This maps could serve as sourcing to show the origins of this street. Linda Olive (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is no actual written information about the street itself other than the fact that it wasn't on one map and is on another one. The first map could simply have been inaccurate or incomplete. At the risk of repeating myself, what is needed is reliable sources that have significant, non-trivial mention of this particular street. Since nobody has been able to find those after all this searching, I say we delete the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. After all, I'm only guessing from this map evidence. The only maps I could find online with a name written for it are very recent. Abductive (reasoning) 01:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Street has many names in different languages,and there is the potential for sources from different places. Dew Kane (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proffer the names. Abductive (reasoning) 02:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential or theoretical sources are no good. We need actual sources, not feelings or suspicions that sources exist. Three weeks onto this debate and still nobody can find them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Rivieri

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

I think this is a pretty clear cut case of a WP:BLP1E. While I don't in any way condone the actions of Mr. Rivieri and am certainly not interested in whitewashing these incidents, the fact is that Mr. Rivieri was only in the news briefly for a couple of (closely related) occurrences. He's a non-notable beat cop who got some bad press due to his behavior--nothing more. Per BLP1E, when "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." That seems to be the case here (I'll add that the existence of two different videos does not change the fact that this is basically a "single event," with said event being the officer's perceived unprofessional behavior and the reaction to it). Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I once thought of proposing this article for deletion for the same reason suggested by the nom. But as I looked it over, I realized that the officer has come to media attention for two similar but separate events: the one involving the teen and the one involving the artist. Also, the one involving the teen especially was nationally publicized (see WP:Depth of coverage). Several months after it occurred, the YouTube video surfaced nationally, was presented on the front page of AOL News and other sites, and was used to make a case regarding the treatment of youth by officers (a lasting effect). A civil was to follow. I had also at one time considered merging this back into Baltimore Police Department from which it was split, but I found reason enough for this officer to have his own article. Sebwite (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri. Per WP:EVENT, the event is notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, however, there is currently no need for a stand-alone article on the person. Location (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as the nominator I'm also quite okay with this option and can help with the merge if the closing admin determines that this is where the consensus is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri, as per WP:BLP1E. Incident did not receive coverage on par with Rodney King or Abner Louima, which would have allowed for separate bios for the main protagonists in the incident. --Pink Bull 22:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvon J. Thomas

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. After some Googling I have not been able to find any substantial references to him other than social networking sites, his own company's website, forum posts etc. The one external reference to him that I can find - Yorkvision - looks insubstantial. A bit iffy (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: If, in the next few days, no one else responds to this Afd, or if the article isn't enhanced, could an admin simply treat it as a "PROD"? Soon after nominating this for deletion, I felt I should have "PRODed" it instead of putting it through the Afd process as I think it's fairly straightforward candidate for deletion.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. 20-year-old who has done a little freelance game designing, and recently got his first job in the industry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and MelanieN. Dewritech (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Levshina

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at the highest level for her sport which is World Figure Skating Championships. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not competed in major senior-level competition. -Drdisque (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Ross

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

Apart from a single article on the Scotsman covering this mans death [38], there seems to be very little justification for an article. This author lacks notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the obituary, I'd say "notability" depends upon subject matter. Endrick Shellycoat 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obit in major newspaper explains his notability. Borock (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have something of a POV/promotional slant that needs to be fixed. However, the subject appears to be notable. A filtered GoogleNews search[39] shows a fair amount of specific coverage of him in the newsmedia before his death, e.g. [40][41][42],[43], and so on. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, apart from the obit in The Scotsman mentioned by the nominator, there were also obituaries in The Times[44] and in Herald Scotland[45]. I have added refs to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And also an obit in The Independent [46]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly is not going to be support for its deletion, may as well close this AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obits in multiple major dailies shows notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the issue of "keep" vs "delete". No consensus on whether or not this subject deserves its own article or should be merged/redirected. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naksa Day

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

Duplicates information contained in 1967 Palestinian exodus, adding some additional contextual information. Any useful information, e.g. the reference to the 2005 book, may be merged into 1967 Palestinian exodus. Cs32en Talk to me 01:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has the potential for considerable enlargement. The related Nakba Day is a substantial article now, and with additional research this stub could be fleshed out too. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1967 Palestinian exodus, per WP: NOTDICDEF. Just a definition that will unlikely expand beyond a stub.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously an independent encyclopedic subject and not something that should be subsumed. Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourover

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

Made up. This user seems to be the sock of another user with a similar name I can't remember. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made up at school one day. No references or sources. JIP | Talk 05:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT applies. The website appears to have been created this week. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revise that to {{db-hoax}}. Well remembered Marcus Q. Author is obvious sock of Cardlover190 (talk · contribs) who created Krinkill which also had an alleged Civil War origin. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Wallace

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

I'm finding only one source for reviews and it looks, well, highly biased (and maybe a blog, I can't tell). No RSes I can find, but the name is fairly common... Hobit (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides no sources all the article says is that he writes books for a living. So no assertion of notability.Borock (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zamani

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

Subject is a videographer. Does not obviously meet WP:ARTIST.

The artist's website looks like an ad for video services; his portfolio includes commercials, web design, wedding photography, and some music videos. The music videos seem somewhat like art to me, but overall I doubt whether he is presenting his own work as creative innovation and in any case I cannot find any third-party reviews of him as an artist.

He might be notable as a primary promoter of Persian rap music, but I am unable to reference that he is either promoting himself as such or more importantly that any RS has suggested as much.

There are a list of artists on this page whose videos he has produced. Some do rap; I am guessing that all are Persian. Actually all the videos are polished and the artists are good; I nominated all of them for deletion, though, because I cannot find any evidence that any of them meet WP:BAND. Blue Rasberry 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. Rirunmot 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. But I have to say that some of those guys are very popular in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesnt stablish notability. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Solati

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

This is a musician who does not obviously meet WP:BAND but whose article has been edited by a lot of people since 2006. The article gives no references but says that he has been called a "hero" of Persian pop music and "a sound over all sounds," which may indicate some cultural status, but nothing is explained or referenced.

I am unable to find any evidence that any of his albums were successful enough to make this person notable. Blue Rasberry 02:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per section 11 and 12. Most of USA based Iranian pop singers are banned within the country, but they are very very popular in Iran. During these years some radio and TV stations like Radio Farda, Radio Zamaneh, BBC Persian, and VOA broadcast regularly their works. Solati is not among the top 10 of persian singers but is one the most successful, he and her sister Shohreh Solati. See this for more info. Honestly I couldn't find good things about him, even in Persian!Farhikht (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesnt meet WP:Music , maybe its a good article for Farsi wikipedia but English reliable sources are needed for English wiki and I couldnt find notable reviews at Allmusic , --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The article doesn't give proofs of notability,--Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahyad

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

This is a musician. The current version of this article does not meet WP:BAND. I checked a few historical versions; they do not meet this either.

I would have CSD'd this, but the article has been around almost entirely in this form since 2006. The guy does have four albums, and they seem to all have generated some promotional interviews, but I do not think he has been promoted outside the context of his own music, and I do not think his music style is notable for any particular reason, but I would bring this to discussion anyway just because of the longevity and edit history of this article. Blue Rasberry 01:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesnt meet WP:Music , couldnt find any reliable sources, the author should write it again with reliable sources. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After multiple relists and reading the previous AFD, I still do not believe any headway has been made towards a consensus for anything as of yet. –MuZemike 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. IQinn (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ -- I think I offered an excellent reason, duruing the recently closed {{afd}} as to why rather than nominating articles on individual training camps there should be a central discussion of the common issues of all the related training camps. I am very sorry to report that our nominator always flatly refuses to enter into any central discussions, when there are common issues shared by some of the articles we both edit. Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination incorporates a misconception common to many of the other instances when our nominator has nominated articles I started for deletion. Our nominator routinely misinterprets the term "independent of the subject". If the article was citing something written by the staff, trainees or sponsors of the Al Fand camp, then it would be accurate to say those references were not "indepdendent of the subject". But, from the way our nominator uses this term, it seems they think any document that mentions a topic is not "independent" of the topic -- without regard to who authored the document. If we were to use this interpretation of this term then none of our references would be "independent of the subject". Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you are the creator of this article and nobody likes his article to be deleted but i do not think you have provided us with an excellent reason why we should ignore our basic policies because you personally have a special interest.
- One mentioning in one document does not add up to "significant coverage" and therefore it fails the basic requirement for inclusion WP:GNG. Could you please address this argument. IQinn (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On several other occasions you have stated or implied that I was being paid to subvert the wikipedia, by trying to sneak in "propaganda". If your reference to my "special interest" is intended to imply, again, that I am in a conflict of interest, that I am a paid employee, or contractor, or similar, then I repeat, again, that I am not in a conflict of interest. I am not being paid by anyone, to cottribute to the wikipedia. I am not a volunteer for any organization that has an interest in pushing a POV. I am just another hard-working volunteer who has done his best to write from a neutral point of view.
  - I believe I have already indicated my acceptance that some of the articles on training camps should be merged. I continue to believe it would be far better to discuss which of those articles on those camps should be merged in a central discussion. I know you are aware that I suggested previously that the training camps were the 9-11 hijackers were alleged to have trained merit separate articles. What needs to be decided is the demarcation -- the dividing line between those that merit separate articles, and those that don't. Your individual, separate, disconnected nominations make determining the dividing line in an intelligent, well-organized way essentially impossible.
  - I continue to be mystified and disappointed by your surprising general reluctance to engage in central discussions of common issues when they are shared by related articles. And I repeat my request that you reconsider your blanket refusals. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am mystified as to why you would suggest that I am trying to get us to "ignore our basic policies". Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Afd is the central place to discuss. One mentioning in one document just does not add up to "significant coverage" that's why this article fails WP:N, WP:GNG. I am surprise that you keep fillibustering without addressing this argument. IQinn (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. GoogleNews and GoogleBooks show almost nothing of relevance. Does not pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular camp is not widely covered. But the general phenomenon that 181 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, in part, due to allegations that they received training at an underground camp, like this one, is very widely covered. And for this reason I encourage you to reconsider your "delete" opinion, and consider a "merge" instead, to an article on the general phenomenon. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries". Combating Terrorism Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-08-30.
- - This particular camp in not notable. It is mentioned nowhere not even in the US military source that you provide here nor anywhere else. The source that you provide here list all notable and even the less notable training camps in their paper. That Al Fand training camp is not mentioned in this paper is evidence that it is not notable. I favor delete over merge until their is at least one secondary source that says something about the camp or a secondary source that mention the camp in relation of the role it has played in the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Non of these sources exist. IQinn (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, I am in agreement with Iquinn. (Incidentally, the merge proposal is not implementable at the moment anyway since no target article for the merge has been suggested). In addition to what Iquinn said, a merge is only appropriate if there is a significant amount of material in the article in question that might need to be merged. This is not the case here, as the article consists of a single short paragraph. A merge is not warranted here and, at the most, a "delete and redirect" may be appropriate, if a plausible target for a redirect is suggested. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:RS do support the existence of the Al Fand training camp, but those WP:RS do not go into enough detail to support an article. While the existing references do not go into enough detail to support an individual article, I suggest they do support coverage of the camp in a more general article. As to the target for a merge -- we have an article Afghan training camps. Alternately, the bar chart I included above names eleven camps, and has bars for them, indicating how many captives attended them. It has a twelfth bar, for "Other". That bar shows something like 80 captives are suspected of attending camps not attended by many other captives -- at least under that name. So, an alternate target would be something like: Militant training camps allegedly attended by suspected terrorists or Militant training camps allegedly attended by Guantanamo internees. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said before, I am opposed to a merge closure and believe that a plain "delete" (or perhaps "delete and redirect") is appropriate here. The article which is the subject of this AfD is very short, just three brief sentences. There is really nothing to merge here. As a form of an AfD closure, "merge" is only appropriate if the article under discussion contains a significant amount of verifiable information, which is not the case here. If you want to mention something about this camp in the Afghan training camps, you should take it to Talk:Afghan training camps or be bold and just add a couple of sentences about the camp to the Afghan training camps article and see if anyone objects. But this does not require and does not warrant a merge. Nsk92 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As pointed out, the report where your graph was taken from list other camps - Al Fand training camp is not mentioned once in the whole report.
        
        We have only one source that mention the the term Al Fand training camp without any explanation or further information.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that explains what kind of camp this was.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that this camp even existed.
        
        We do not have any WP:RS that Al Fand training camp was an Militant training camp. No WP:RS for these claims at all. Sorry for putting this in bold, this is not shouting it is just something that needed to make clear.
        
        Delete with no redirect to something that is not clearly supported by WP:RS is the only option here unless we want to create and allow misleading associations into our encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Upon looking at the sources closer, I agree with IQuinn. Just plain "delete" here, with no merges and no redirects. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You looked at the bar chart? You read that the Felter article listed an additional 27 camps? Other references list camps not listed in that reference. Which articles merit individual articles, which don't merit individual articles, but do merit a paragraph, or sentence in an article about the general phenomenon of these camps being used as a justification for continued detention -- and whether some should simply be totally forgotten. You seem to have taken the position that this particular camp merits being totally forgotten. OK, what would be your position about a camp for which we have WP:RS from which we can only substantiate a single individual being alleged to have trained there -- but where the allegations were more detailed, and claimed the individual was trained in the preparation and use of IEDs, poisons and assassination techniques? What about the camps where several captives were alleged to have trained? What about the camps alleged to have been directed by individuals identified elsewhere as senior al Qaeda lieutenants? I continue to think our nominator's piecemeal individual nominations were a mistake because they stripped the discussion of necessary context. Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, as our nominator acknowledges, we have a source that asserts a Guantanamo captive attended the Al Fand Training Camp. We know the allegation the captive attended the camp was considered a sufficient justification, at least in part, for years of extrajudicial detention. With regard to the assertion that we don't know the camp even existed -- so what? It is possible that the existence of this camp was a sick fantasy on the part of incompetent analysts. Maybe this is what our nominator is suggesting. In America's old colonial period local authorities conducted the Salem witch trials, which were based on sick fantasies. We cover allegations even when we know they are based on sick fantasies. There used to be the Luminiferous aether theory of light. We don't stop covering scientific theories, supported by WP:RS, when they are widely considered disproved. We don't fail to cover theories widely considered to be crackpot theories -- when they have been covered in WP:RS.
        
        Our nominator challenges whether the American counter-terrorism analysts have taken the position that this was a "militant" training camp. This strikes me as a "prove the sky is blue" kind of objection. Without regard to explicit proof that this was considered a "militant" traing camp, we know that alleged attendance at this camp was considered suspicious enough that attendance was offered as a justification, at least in part, for years of extrajudicial detention. What other kind of training camp, other than a military training camp, would be offered as a justification for continued detention? I dunno -- maybe a camp for training fiery preachers? Military camp, preacher camp, some other dangerous camp -- whatever kind of camp, if it was used as a justification for holding men in Guantanamo, then it is worth coverage in Afghan training camp.
        
        Our nominator's final objection above, contains a serious misinterpretation of policy. They wrote: "Delete with no redirect to something that is not clearly supported by WP:RS is the only option here unless we want to create and allow misleading associations into our encyclopedia." Our nominator and I have a long correspondence. They routinely assert that material that cites valid WP:RS, and, IMO, is written from a neutral point of view, has to be excised because it will leave readers with "the wrong impression". That is what I think they mean with their claim a redirect to Afghan training camp, and a mention in that article, is allowing "misleading associations". Our nominator's position is that we should try to tailor and direct the conclusions our readers arrive at -- not allow them to reach their own conclusions. This is advocacy. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. Our personal interpretation of the reliability of what our WP:RS assert is irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the countless uncivil ad hominum parts of the comment against "our nominator" by user Geo Swan and continues fillibustering i would like to recommend user Geo Swan to read WP:Civil at least five times more. This has been IMO become disruptive to the work here.
        
        No we do not know all of this and we do not have WP:RS for it. Not at all. We can make a guess where the camp was located. We may guess what kind of camp it was. We can guess if this allegation played a role in the detention. We can guess if the camp ever existed. We can guess that it was run by the Taliban. We can guess that it belonged to al Qaeda. We may guess that is was a Militant training camp. But the fact is we do not know and we do not have WP:RS to verify any of these claims.
        
        The only single WP:RS that does exist is well covered in Khalid al-Asmr. No need for anything else. Surely not a redirection that is based on guesses and not on what WP:RS verifies.
        
        This article has been created years ago without sufficient WP:RS. It had a tag for a very long time that told the creator that there is no sufficient WP:RS. This is now the third AfD where it was shown that there is no sufficient WP:RS. Nevertheless continues pushing for keeping the article without providing sufficient WP:RS and then continues pushing for a redirection without providing sufficient WP:RS has become disruptive. I highly suggest that an administrator with guts simply closes this AfD and speedy delete this article as we should not leave Wikipedia to filibuster and those who try to push their views against the rules of the community. But that is just my personal opinion. IQinn (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I drafted a proposal, over three months ago about what to do with the articles on What to do with Afghan training camps. In that proposal I explained that I drafted most of these articles in 2006 or 2007, when I expected additional references would emerge. I acknowledged that, for most of the camps additional references haven't emerged. I proposed then that most of these articles should be merged to an article on all the less well attended camps. The "speedy keep" I initially placed represents an instance when I responded emotionally, and forgot I was already on record as suggesting merge for articles like this. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Ipiña

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

WP:N and WP:V concerns. Passing mention of an exhibition at the Org. of American States (see OAS external link), one or two passing mentions in Google News. No other signficant, reliable secondary coverage that I can find, although I may be missing other sources--I don't see enough material to write a biographical article from. Unsourced for nearly three years. (Neutrality tagged for most of that time as well.) j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is mention of several exhibitions, but not enought to meet WP:N in my opinion. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any articles or books. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groton-Dunstable Regional School District. NW (Talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groton-Dunstable Regional Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is that the school is trying to create the largest book in the world. Although that would probably be better for the article to be about the book rather than the middle school. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groton Dunstable Regional School District, a typical outcome of AfDs for middle schools (middle and elementary school articles are rarely kept unless specific notability is shown). The history section of this article would start off the district article nicely.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Milowent. There is no notability, as Wikipedia defines the term, in attempting to do something. There isn't even much inherent notability in doing something. Notability comes from the outside world noticing. Lacking any evidence that this school passes the GNG or meets the standards of WP:V, an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Groton-Dunstable Regional School District, which I wrote a stub on for the purposes of this. The middle school isn't independently notable any more than the average middle school is (if the book gets any more notable, it can have its own article, but it's not there yet.) The history in the article would be well-suited for the district's article, however, so a merge would be more appropriate than a straight redirect. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Groton-Dunstable Regional School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Goodyer

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

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, unreferenced WP:Autobiography per WP:BLP, zero GNEWS hits, zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. No sourcing, and even as listed, his accomplishments don't seem like much from the standpoint of WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Real Chance of Love (season 1). –MuZemike 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Givens

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

This bio is entirely unsourced. A search in GoogleNews comes up with nothing, which indicates that perhaps this article should be deleted. Pink Bull 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he and his brother appeared on several reality television programs and were even the subject of their own show, which aired for two seasons. The news link above does return results. If it is decided that there isn't enough material for an individual article, then I would suggest redirecting the page to Real Chance of Love, and merging the most important information there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the Google News results. The regular Google News search turns up nothing.[47] I can't explain the discrepancy. Regardless, five positive results alone do not establish notability, in my opinion.--Pink Bull 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reality show contestants are non encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources and I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. --Rirunmot 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Delete - notability not established at this time, sources are blogs and short blurbs, hard to see how the article will get better unless he becomes better known. Seaphoto^Talk 04:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- This article is highly connected to the article "Real Chance of Love (season 1)", which has good reliable sources. L. E. Evans (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Treasury of New England Short Stories

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Treasury of New England Short Stories

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

Sadads (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've corrected the formatting on this nomination, and moved it to this page (with the correct title). The original rationale was interposed with the page title, and read thus: "Short story collection does not appear notable". At the moment, no opinion from me on deletion (though I might review it later). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on perfunctory nom. Doing a tiny bit of research, the collection appears to be a mix of notable and non-notable (or at least "without a Wikipedia article") authors. As the book itself is a collection of stories reprinted from a magazine, the contents will almost certainly have appeared in other reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't appear to be notable under the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Doesn't appear there's anything to be said about the collection beyond listing its contents, unless somebody has some print-only resources regarding it? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've written elsewhere (quite a while ago), we don't have a guideline specific for fiction anthologies, but probably should, as these are much less likely to be reviewed by major newspapers, but at the same time are widely read and many users will find lists of their contents extremely useful. In this case, the sponsor was a very notabley magazine/journal, and many of the writers included are notable, so while I acknowledge that notability isn't inherited, even with stories, the whole package here, to my mind, favors keeping. Needless to say, I suspect others will disagree on this one. Vartanza (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominater, delete Vartanz, Wikipedia, though, does not need to offer the list, they can find it at any number of other sites, including google books, etc. Notability, first and foremost, effects the inclusion of articles. This does not appear notable. If we included every anthology with a notable author, then we would have masses upon masses of anthologies. What would you propose next a editions of Literary journals with fiction from notable authors? How about editions of scholarly journals with articles written by notable scholars? No, the short stories which are notable should be talked about on the respective author's page not in a list related to a non-notable anthology. Sadads (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The stories and the authors might be great, but nobody is interested in reading an article about the anthology. Isn't that what WP is supposed to be, a collection of articles for people to read and become more informed? Not a reprinting of tables of contents. Borock (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article, it's advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a list of contents in a fiction anthology. I can't see the importance of this material to this encyclopedia. --Stormbay (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Borock. This article's only claim to [[WP:N|notability] is inherited from the various authors. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Demonata characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bec MacConn

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Demonata characters. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article (and all Demonata articles really) is the way in which it is edited: unregistered users or those who aren't too aware of the 'Wikipedia Editing Way' just add in little sentences that don't make sence and have spelling and grammatical errors, leading to a poorly constructed article that basically describes everything the character does with a step-by-step description of her actions in the books and a mention of every single use of her powers etc.. Basically, it read less like an encyclopaedic article and more like the books on the character have been re-written by a child and squeezed into a single page.

If the article was deleted and the details cut down and merged onto Jclemens' suggested page, which also needs a sort through, would there not be too much information on the character for simply a section? And therefore would it not classify as notable enough for its own page? steveking89 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional character's notability is not demonstrated by the amount of pertinent information that exists; it is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This character has not experienced such coverage. Any information about the character that cannot fit into a section about the character on the character list does not have a place on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no significant reception from reliable sources. Support merge, per above. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brewing Network

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

No real indication of notability is given, that I can see. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following the "Find sources" links above, there is evidence to show that this station exists, though its notability is not fully established as the sources tend to simply mention it - such as this, which says you have podcasts, you have local homebrewing clubs, and you have the brewing network. It doesn't appear to meet our relevant guidelines - Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (media). I am borderline on this at the moment, as I feel there might be enough evidence brought forward to establish why this station is notable beyond a select group of people, though it's not quite there yet. I'd like to see some stronger sources used in the article, and a rationale given in the article for notability. SilkTork *^YES! 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Selectively merge to Microbrewery, since the refs cited above satisfy verifiability and it seems important enough to mention in the article most closely related to Craft brewing, which should have its own article,, since it is a notable subject not identical to Microbrewery. The two mentions in books and the one news listing of an upcoming event do not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A see a few mentions of this media source here and there, but nothing extensive. But some of the unverifiable materials could be removed and the verifiable stuff remain -- for its niche, it does seem to be known.--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locstein

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

Non-notable firm with no refererences to establish notability, with potential WP:ADVERT and WP:COI issues |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the only reference I could find, called seriously into question the legitimacy of Locstein. See an investigative piece from the Mirror: "'Leading' money firm Locstein Asset takes on lying cheat Matt James." From my own research I could find very little to establish that this is a credible organization. It does not appear to be registered as would a typical financial services organization in the UK. I am very skeptical and noted that this fail on a number of other fronts as well|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggested merge target does not yet exist (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 8

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggested merge target does not yet exist (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 6

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

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Flash. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarro Flash

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

Merge to The Flash. This article is of no notability, is badly structured, and only a couple of articles link to it. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Flash Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to The Flash as a suitable way to cover it. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dope (band). Does not meet WP:NSONG. Contents to be merged with nearest appropriate article, and the title turned into a redirect. The nearest article is No Regrets (Dope album), though that article has questionable notability, and, per WP:NALBUMS, should be redirected to Dope (band) SilkTork *^YES! 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Addendum: No Regrets (Dope album) was previously deleted after an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Regrets (Dope album). SilkTork *^YES! 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction (Dope song)

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

non notable single per WP:NSONG, redirect was reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album, per WP:NSONG "and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album". If the redirect is undone, point the user to this AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable'. Robo37 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what national chart was it ranked on? What significant awards or honours has it won? Who are the notable artists who have released this single? The Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks just compiles the songs that are played on niche rock stations and is not based on sales like other charts. Mo ainm~Talk 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is still a significant music chart, and Zakk Wylde is definitely a notable artist. Robo37 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so lets assume that Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is significant (which I have my doubts) it hasn't won any significant awards or honours and it hasn't been covered by any notable bands artists or groups. Also there isn't "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and as such the article is "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" Mo ainm~Talk 19:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 29

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.