Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 1

< 31 May	2 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. Redirects at editoral control, of course. Courcelles (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan de Jardin

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

I've been trying to source unreferenced Canadian BLPs, and cannot find any reliable sources about this man who made a brief foray into Canadian provincial politics in 1984. Neither could this editor, it appears. There was a previous AFD (then VFD) in 2005, which is to be found on the talkpage and which makes for interesting reading; it appears the criteria for establishing notability have changed a lot in the last 5 years. But given our current guidelines, and the requirement that BLP articles be sourced, this one now doesn't make the grade. Slp1 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If unelected to public office and in the absence of any press coverage that has been found (I found none), my feelings would be that the article fails: WP:POLITICIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs)
- Redirect as per Whpq, seems pretty obvious now that I know the article exists. --Wintonian (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, no sources.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the material about his run for the 1984 leadership to Manitoba Liberal Party#The 1980s. The Manitoba Liberal Party isn't some fringe party; it's one of the major political parties in Manitoba porvincial politics. A leadership race would have created some coverage, which would support expanding this material in the Manitoba Liberal Party, but I suspect that being 1984, those materials are not available online. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manitoba Liberal Party leadership elections#1984 leadership convention results. Very little coverage. Found this. It's conceivably a search term and pointing a readr to the election results at leat provides them with a modicum of information related to him. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old VFD is interesting reading. Basically, they didn't agree that notability mattered. Now that we've defined both notability and verifiability, we go with that. Nothing verifiable in this article = delete, not merge (nothing sourced = nothing to keep). No notability as we define it. While candidate may have been notable to the Party at the time, it doesn't seem that narrow notability resulted in any coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Summer PhD. consensus has changed dramatically since 2005, namely we now require notability. Also, WP:POLITICIAN has emerged as the litmus test, pardon the pun. deJardin fails the tests. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability is solely that he got 21 votes in a leadership contest, that information is already part of the list of party leadership election results. Canuckle (talk) 03:18, 3 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. Clearly no consensus to delete. Should probably be merged in its current state, unless someone wants to actually incorporate some of those prospective sources. Shimeru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced orgasm

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

This is term promoted by the BDSM porn industry. Most of this article is unsourced. The only sourced parts are about involuntary orgasm, which has a separate section in another article, and I don't see how it differs from the notion conveyed here. So, this article appears to be a poorly sourced WP:CFORK. Pcap ping 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This seems a valid referenced article; I don't see that the nominator offers sufficient or valid reason for deletion in their nomination. WCityMike 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which don't reference the stuff that makes this different from involuntary orgasm. See WP:BOMBARD. I have the impression you haven't even read the nomination. Pcap ping 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Orgasm though that article seems to be getting a bit long no other section has a main article for it, and there are only the two paragraphs that aren’t in the Involuntary orgasms section so it wouldn't add much and would seem to be consistent. --Wintonian (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep specific sexual practice, though the literature on topics of this sort is not primarily in what we normally consider standard reliable sources. It's good there's enough here to defend the article. We need to expand these topics, not merge them. I sometimes think WP is surprisingly prudish. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have references for this practice (as opposed to refs for involuntary orgasm) please add them. None are present in the article right now. Pcap ping 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NRVE. Claritas § 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow--Google scholar hits going back to 1888! Plenty of Books hits, too, including a discussion in an academic criticism of Yukio Mishima (neat!). This one needs to be expanded. Heather (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. There are no google scholar hits (other than trivial mentions) and the book mentioned is a literary critique. Closest thing is:
Roy J. Levin; Willy van Berlob (2004). "Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review". 11 (2): 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2003.10.008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)--Savonneux (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here we go again. People want to censor WP and use this cloak that its unsourced. This is all over the "underground" websites and yes, blogs that dominate (not in the BDSM way) this kind of source of information. Yes pornography makes a commercial clutter of finding legitimate information. For these reasons, it is essential that WP provide a sane link to information.OsamaPJ (talk) 19:23, 3 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---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Heretics

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

Contested/declined speedy. Fails WP:BAND, not WP:NOTABLE. GregJackP (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — For the same reasons given by nominator. WCityMike 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Closer to the requirements than most bands I seem to come across, but still not enough to meet WP:BAND. --Wintonian (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, though I admit after a third look that the speedy nom was probably a mistake. Jminthorne (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and insufficient coverage to pass WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
could be worth incubating, they may be getting there, there is a review by Chris Johnston in The Age on 28 May 2010 and this review. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The band was also featured in the newspaper 'MX' in Melbourne. This wiki is informative and a good source for fans to receive information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyredwolf (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) — Babyredwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]
- If you mean MX (Australia), 29 April 2010, "BIG TICS FOR FREEBIE", I don't know if this two sentence article is non-trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If major newspapers covered them, then the choice should be keep. If two independent significant publications exist then WP:N is passed even if WP:BAND is not. Speedy delete declined as one of the members had been in another band with an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another short review in The Gold Coast Bulletin, 5 June 2010. duffbeerforme (talk)
The feature on MX was a half page cover photo. MX is has a 300,000 people a day exposure in Melbourne.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deletion requested by author: [1] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds Linux

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

Notability not asserted; references insufficient; recreated of page speedily deleted as advert/spam Yworo (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Userfy as creator of the article. Rohedin (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced that prohibits you from expressing an opinion of support/keep. It would also be a good opportunity for you to assert notability. Incidentally, I'm tending towards delete, because I'm not seeing how it's notable - at this point. Convince me! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the best I could provide are sources consisting of websites that copy videos and text to make it seem like it is related to the subject. At best, this article was just a poor man's attempt at a Linux article and I wouldn't mind it being moved back to it's user space until it ages and possibly gain some form of notability. Rohedin (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was deleted as non-notable before and this version is ~~virtually~~ completely identical and still non-notable. This distro is not even listed on DistroWatch. Furthermore it is WP:SPAM and was created by the initiator of the subject which is a WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no third-party references, no indication whatsoever of notability, no explanation why this is relevant in any way. --Jerebin (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the author has !voted userfy, couldn't we simply userfy the article and speedy close this with a delete? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 21:50, 5 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) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The_Head_that_Wouldn't_Die!

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

Notability of a local play is extremely questionable

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptcrow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual, possibly use WP:CSD as A7. --Wintonian (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local play that isn't yet notable. First Light (talk) 04:01, 3 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. Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources covering the gentleman in depth should be discovered. Shimeru (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thimio Gogozoto

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, just another combatant in the Spanish Civil War among thousands. The only sources I can find on this guy are communist-era tracts put out by the Albanian Communist Party, where his name is listed among many, and no specific information about him is given. Same goes for the only source in the article. Many thousands volunteered to fight in Spanish Civil War; that by itself is not sufficient to make someone notable Athenean (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I see that the only source that's used in the article [[2]] also lists his name among several others. There is not a single info. that treats him as individual.Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Garibaldi Battalion, it doesn't offer any additional (sourced) information, since info that treats him as individual is nowhere to be found.Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has been decorated posthumously by Albania. For the record sources don't have to be online for a subject to be notable and just because there aren't many Albanian sources online thath doesn't mean that a subject is not notable. I copied most of the information from the Directorate of Archives and I can even bring a photograph from books written by Albanian writers who have been or still are members of the Academy of Sciences of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, even if these sources exist, they are nowhere to be found in the article. The only source in the article is a link to a Spanish embassy website. Second, assuming these sources do exist, that still doesn't make him notable. He was born in northwestern Greece, he went to study in France, joined the Garibaldi battalion, and got killed. He was then posthumously decorated. So what? Thousands upon thousands were decorated, both by Spain and their home countries. That alone does not make one notable. Joining the Garibaldi battalion does not make one notable. Studying in France does not make one notable. Seems to me that you seem to think this guy is notable because he was Albanian and born in Greece, which to you somehow "proves" that north-western Greece is "Albanian" land. Being a Cham Albanian, however, is not by itself sufficient to make one notable. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started that article as part of articles related to Albanians that joined the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War not because he was a Cham Albanian, but that seems to be your rationale not mine. I have started other similar articles like Petro Marko, a DYK article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zjarri: Please do not change the subject. As you claim Marko was primarily known as.... Albanian author. Also Gogozoto is mentioned together with several others like: Zef Hoti, Urfi Agolli, Teni Konomi, Asim Vokshi, Musa Fratari, Ramiz Varvarica, Thimio Gogozoto y Xhemal Kada, Daut Muço Podgora. Mysteriously Gogozoto has his own article. Moreover, as you already stated there are a number of sources offline, but unfortunately, someone based on offline stuff can claim everything (we have serious wp:verify issues).Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Makes no claim of notability except serving? Flag officers are the only inherently notable military ranks. No significant coverage. Note: stop trying to lawyer WP:V, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, that's why WP:AGF.--Savonneux (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, in the past various editors tried to misuse specific sources in order to support a pro-Albanian pov, using works by Kretsi, Hart etc (before these works become accesible online), or even misinterpreting snippets they found in googlebooks (latest case Talk:Souliotes#Snippet_abuse...). This has nothing to do with wp:agf.Alexikoua (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable to have his own article like the references prove.--KëngaJonë 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , not notable, no reliable sources of note Megistias (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an Albanian antifascst that joined an the Garibaldi Battalion in the eve of world War II is an interesting fact and a wikipedia article about him can exist, not only flaf officier can have an article but also soldier that recived a secoration loke Gogozoto. User:Lucifero4
Keep, as per Lucifero4. I don't expect others to know all Albanian figures. In Albanian history he is notable and has been decorated by the president for his activity. Aigest (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lucifero, KengaJone, Aigest, and ZjarriRrethues. He was recepient of Per Merita Patriotike English: Patriotic Meritsmedal, , awarded by law of 1962, which is at the same level of the For Defense of the Socialist Homeland medal. These two medals were some of the highest recognitions that Socialist Albania could provide in 50 years (along with (People's Hero of Albania and Skanderbeg's Order)). The receipt of such medal alone makes this person notable. These medals have been awarded only to a handful of people. In addition it was not a one event person. He was notable because he was the only fallen from the region of Chameria, he was notable because he was an Albanian who participated in the Spanish Civil War in the Garibaldi Battalion, he was notable because he was the recipient of an extremely valuable medal from his country. If we add the fact that he was a volunteer to help in the antifascist war in Spain and gave his life for this. Some of the best people of Albania gave their lives in the Civil War in Spain: it was 4-5 of them and probably 40-50 Albanians participated overall in the Civil War. They were some of the best people inspired with international antifascist ideas and each one of them will deserve an article. It's an interesting article and for now it's just a stub, but other info, which is offline might be added. However there is plenty of notability if that's the concern. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His having been from Chameria has nothing to do with notability. His notability is because he was a 'recipient of an extremely valuable medal'. Keep if that can be verified. DS (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why I have the feeling that all this is a wp:or concert. God knows if something of the above ever happened.Alexikoua (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being Albanian and fighting in the Spanish Civil War is not sufficient to make one notable. Thousands of people from all over the world fought in that war. That doesn't mean they each deserve their own article. Neither is ethnicity a source of notability: Are Albanian volunteers more notable than Latvian or a Hungarian volunteers? And where does this end? Are Albanians simply more notable for being Albanian? The other point the "keep" votes miss is that there is no material specific to this person: His name is just mentioned along with dozens of others, just as we would expect for someone who is not notable, but whose article was created solely for the usual irredentist POV reasons. Athenean (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been decorated by the People's Republic of Albania after his death. That fact is important as a sign of notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the totalitarian Stalinist regime, which decorated thousands of others, whomever it pleased, for whatever reasons it pleased (and usually not the best of reasons). Athenean (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, I'm not sure if Presidents in western democracies hold any referendums when they award medals. As far as I am concerned Wikipedia does not make any distinction to the form of government as to notability, so please stop baiting people with these totally inappropriate remarks. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a medal from a totalitarian dictatorship does not make one notable. Sorry, but that's just how I see it. Not baiting anyone. Now, if we were to create an article about every single individual who ever received a medal from a government (regardless of its type), throughout history....we'd run out of server space. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , he isn't notable. His name is just mentioned among several other soldiers, nothing to treat him as a distinct person.CrazyMartini (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable because of decoration by the People's Republic of Albania.--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:20, 7 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) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleg

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

Found this when trying to find information on the Kleg mine in Siskiyou(sp?) County, California. Does not appear to be notable, and appears to have been tagged for darn near forever. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources couldn't find anything that shows them to be notable. First Light (talk) 04:04, 3 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) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Men...(Or 400 Dollars)

Webside finland is a Finnish company dealing primarily in webbased sales and seo promotions, this book is its third publication. Its first in the USA. Its website is http://www.webside.fi/ and can be found through google, this site can be translated to English. Not really sure what constitutes "notable". This author has several articles published and can be found on her own column as well as in the examiner and google. Perhaps one of you could assist in how I would establish "notable" I thought it was an interesting and relevant book topic. Melissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissyThang (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly non-notable book. Additionally, article is author's only contribution to Wikipedia suggesting possible attempt at promotion of book CosmicJake (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and possibly even self-published, the publisher named on the Amazon listing doesn't show up on Google at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. First Light (talk) 04:05, 3 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) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Recognition of States

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

Nice idea, but totally useless. A list of countries that don't recognise other countries might have some redeeming value because they far outweigh the number of mutual recognitions, but this is far too much information to be of any use whatsoever, and way over any recommended page size. ninety:one 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too large and unwieldy to be a table, and user has apparently given up when I suggested he/she try to use prose rather than a table. Bramble claw x 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what information is conveyed here anyway-- I've been looking at a table with a row and a column of flags, where every box is filled in with the same symbol (+) which apparently means that the nation on that row recognizes the nation in that column. They're all filled in, so what's the message here, that everyone gives diplomatic recognition to everyone else? Oh I think to myself, what a wonderful world... Mandsford 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are about 10 non-recognitions in the world, though I've only spotted one red cross so far...! ninety:one 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So unwieldy as to be unusable. First Light (talk) 04:07, 3 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 - Deleted at Author's request. This closure does NOT have any standing as to the notability of the subject or the consensus of the below debate - just a non-controversial deletion of a single-author article. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyer Farms

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

Farm which fails WP:CORP, no coverage in non-local sources. Two previous AFDs were closed as procedural keeps per WP:ILLEGIT due to the nominator being a sockpuppet of a banned user. Claritas § 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because the banning policy should not be involved in deletion discussions regardless of one's status of being a sock or legit. Rohedin (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even I have to point out that this is not a valid reason to delete the article, and the account is a little suspicious too. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing suspicious about me, I am just a normal guy that has a passion for programming Linux distrbitutions and watches General Hospital from time to time. Rohedin (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A combination which is an extreme red flag, I must add.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. I see no evidence non-trivial coverage of the farm in independent, reliable sources. While it's unfortunate that the first 2 AfDs on the article were started by now-banned sock puppets presumably pursuing some sort of vendetta, that doesn't change the fact this article cites no independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has seemingly no valid sources to establish notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability—a local hero award is not sufficient—and lack of coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long-established business, but with no indication of anything of particular note - other than the Local Heroes award, which is rather, er, local. Apart from which, I note that three of the five awards of that went to places where the magazine "can be found", and that it is a readers' poll award. There could be more history in the business, but it's not in the article if there is. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lack of references is a reason to add them, not delete an article. The findsources above offers possibilities for expansion and further improvement of this stub.[3][4]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial, passing mentions of the farm or its owner do not demonstrate notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP quite comprehensively. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I understnd that the principal editor will shortly be adding some more information justifying the page's existance. I think he should be allowed time to do that. Giacomo 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nowhere near passing WP:CORP. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable per frequent references in easily available online references. This historic farm has also been covered in offline sources and dates to 1904 and is recognized widely as significant. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:24, 2 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) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accupos

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

Non notable company. Article was deleted before and creator banned. Recently the article was recreated by a suspected sockpuppet of the original creator. Article survived a speedy deletion for lack of notability on account of having sources, but I would not consider the current sources to be enough to satisfy WP:Corp Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a software company that develops and publishes point of sale, inventory and timeclock solutions., i.e. an average business in a crowded field. No claims of historical, technical, or cultural importance, only a bunch of minor awards and achievements like The Sleeter Group's "Awesome QuickBooks Add-on" and a gold developer for Quickbooks, achievements that, though real, do not establish that this business has a place in history that means it gets an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage, ref provided read like press releases. Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Records (Christian)

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

Non-Notable company. Codf1977 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. Why is this record label notable? They are a division of Sony Music Entertainment, the second largest record label in the world. All of their current acts are notable and have articles. This is not some small independent label. One of their current acts is Third Day who has been on the label since 1999. During that time they have had 11 albums on the Billboard 200, won 22 Dove Awards (an award for Christian musicians) 4 Grammies (which include mainstream). That's just one of their artists. I could keep going; let me know if I need to say more to prove my point. Royal broil 23:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you can, it would help if you could show the "Significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as detailed in the General Notability Guidelines and that it meets WP:ORG as I was unable to find any. Codf1977 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my argument: Why not compare against WP:MUSIC? This is a musical topic, and in my opinion record labels should be compared to the spirit of the music guideline even if it isn't specifically spelled out there (see WP:CREEP). Every act associated with this label is very notable, so why wouldn't the label itself be notable? Point #5 under WP:MUSIC says "Has released two or more albums on a major label". This is a subsidiary of major label, not an independent label! At least one current artist has met almost all 12 points in the artists section under WP:MUSIC. I added additional independent reliable sources to make it stronger against the general notability guideline. Royal broil 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There certainly are a lot of mentions in Billboard, and in books about the Christian music scene.[5] First Light (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of thoes is significant coverage of the company as opposed to "Band X signed to" or "Sony Y by band Z released by" ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very prominent label, and probably the most successful in its genre (CCM). Many of the artists on the roster are major ones that have received multiple awards, such as Grammys. I'm afraid this nomination is well-meaning but misguided. Jamie S93^❤ 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is misguided - None of the editors proposing Keep have been able to provide any links showing that this company meets either the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 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. The argument that the role in an unreleased film will make him notable is not evidence thathe is notable now; no prejudice against recreation when reviews become available DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Reid

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

Minor actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is playing a major true-life part (Essex) opposite Vanessa Redgrave (Elizabeth I) in a major and much talked-about film coming out in January. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The film may be talked about, but it appears he is not. According to IMDB the role is far from a major part. Please provide support for WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's impossible to tell from IMDB what is a major or minor part, especially nowadays. The film is a political thriller about the Essex Rebellion [6], hence the part of Essex is major, and he goes head-to-head with Redgrave same as in other Essex/Elizabeth movies; it's a quite famous scenario. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - renders 13,400 Ghits and article, while in need of expansion, does assert notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please show me where the number of hits in Google establishes notability in either WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ENT. Asserting notability is not a reason to keep the article in a AfD. Besides if you go the last page of the search you will see that there are only 225 hits for the individual's name in quotes. A good deal of those hits are not even related to the person. ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no evidence of meeting WP:ENT or otherwise being notable. The two above comments have not offered any valid reasons. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 06:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is playing Essex in a movie about the Essex Rebellion, opposite Redgrave. Notable enough for these pages. It's a stub that needs expanding. Smatprt (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – According to IMDB the role is far from a major part. Please provide support for WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's impossible to tell from IMDB what is a major or minor part, especially nowadays. The film is a political thriller about the Essex Rebellion [7], hence the part of Essex is major, and he goes head-to-head with Redgrave same as in other Essex/Elizabeth movies; it's a quite famous scenario. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quoting a Wikipedia article. The director Roland Emmerich says: "It's about who will succeed Elizabeth and the cause of that thriller, the Essex Rebellion." Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, IMDB. Since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, like Wikipedia, is user-run. Plot summaries are submitted by anonymous users. The director's direct quote is a reliable source. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will even be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. Notability is not based on something that has not as yet happened. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Smatprt stole my thunder. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – According to IMDB the role is far from a major part. Please provide support for WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's impossible to tell from IMDB what is a major or minor part, especially nowadays. The film is a political thriller about the Essex Rebellion [8], hence the part of Essex is major, and he goes head-to-head with Redgrave same as in other Essex/Elizabeth movies; it's a quite famous scenario. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is not about the Essex Rebellion. It is a, "political thriller about who actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her." The rebellion is only a backdrop. Again, there is no indication he plays a major role. Additionally, until the film is released, there is no guarantee his part will not end up on the cutting room floor. ttonyb (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quoting a Wikipedia article. The director Roland Emmerich says: "It's about who will succeed Elizabeth and the cause of that thriller, the Essex Rebellion." Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, IMDB. Since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, like Wikipedia, is user-run. Plot summaries are submitted by anonymous users. The director's direct quote is a reliable source. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, since the film is not released there is no way to determine if he will even be in the finished cut or the extent of his part. Notability is not based on something that has not as yet happened. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy delete, because the text described parts that sounded reasonably significant. 10:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (Posted by User:Graeme Bartlett)
Comment: If the reason that this actor might be notable is that he is appearing in a not-yet released film, why not wait until the film is released before creating this article? What if the film is never released? What if it has a very limited release and flops badly? By the way, it appears clear that he is not "starring" in the film - he has a supporting role. I see that the major references to the film do not even mention him, and our own article on Anonymous (film) makes him seem like a very minor character - the plot summary does not even mention the character. The discussion of the film centers on its Oxfordian focus, not on Reid or his character. Just some thoughts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, and because people are coming to Wikipedia to read about this very controversial and much talked-about film, and because when they read the Major Cast list in the film's article, they want to know who these people are, especially who is playing Essex in a film about the Essex Rebellion. It's that simple. We don't want them to have to search around on Google; we want them to have the information onhand linked right there. To wait till the film screens is to negate the fact that this film has already generated a lot of buzz and interest, and a lot of controversy/discussion, negative and postive. Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. First, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of encyclopedic and notable information, not trivial information. See WP:ENT. Second, the film's aticle is the place to find out about the film. By the way, the film does not even have a release scheduled; they hope it will come out in 2011. Third, it does not appear that Essex is a major role in this film. I don't believe that there is anything at all about this role in any WP:RS. It is not that your readers need to search around on Google: you need to find the reliable sources for them and cite them. We need to collect information from reliable sources. You can't just speculate that you "know who these people are" based on other versions of the history. You need actual facts from reliable sources about Reid. Finally, even if this were a notable role in a film that will be notable, it's just one role. I don't believe that every actor who ever had a role in a movie should have an article. You can only write a good article about an actor who has a significant body of work that has been commented upon by major media. See also WP:ENT. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What a mess - regardless of his roles, there are not enough reliable sources, much less verifiable ones. Can someone fix the dead link to Imdb? Add more sources? Bearian (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB link has been active from the very first iteration; article has been clean and straightforward from the beginning, never "a mess." Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smatprt. Evalpor (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no idea whether the role is significant, the film may never be released, the actor's other credits seem to be all school theatre (even assuming that his online CV is true), and not one WP:reliable source has been given that contains any significant acting credit by this young actor other than his role in this unreleased film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 5 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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanthi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

DeleteThere is no any importance to create an article about this person. There are more than 1000 upcoming singers In Sri Lanka and encyclopedia is not a plat form to create personal blogs about them. Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable. I am not sure of the accuracy of the article because anybody can publish personal interviews or personal coverage using newspapers or website. No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is a personal promotion. --Wipeouting (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the AfD was incorrectly formatted, as far as I can tell, ontop of a previous nomination. I have relisted it and informed the user above who created the original S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an obvious case of meeting WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The nominators assertion that Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable is demonstrably false. Nom refuses to consider newspapers as reliable sources ("sophisticate sources" in his words.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Sodabottle notes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are met. Jarkeld (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - original Afd was closed as keep after User:Black Kite added a bunch of good sources. Not clear why nominator here finds them unacceptable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There is no proper rationale for deletion. The article has lots of sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 2 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) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Lady Gaga album)

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

There is no confirmation of this being the title or these tracks being the track listing. There is also no confirmation of release date, the collaborations. None of this information has been confirmed. Alextwa (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the reasoning the original poster offers. If the information used to create and name the article has references, that's another matter. WCityMike 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. No real merit in this article existing just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced too.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:08, 1 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. Seems to be tending towards consensus of delete, with overriding concerns of WP:NOR and WP:ESSAY. Further editorial decisions about inclusion can take place at the talk page for Calligraphy#Eastern Asian calligraphy. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
from User talk:Cirt/Archive 11 Hello, With 4 delete, and 3 keep, the game was close. But when we see that none of the users on the delete side (WikiDany61, 137.122.49.102, Savonneux, or SnottyWong) seems to speak Chinese. On the other side, all Keep users (Benlisquare (李博杰), Asoer, and myself (Yug)) are Chinese speakers, at least fluent, and involve in the Chinese communities/countries. The 2 wikipedia experts on the field of East Asian calligraphy, Stroke order, CJK stroke: me and Asoer support the keep. I think the expertise is clearly on the keep side. The deletion process is NOT a purely quantitative vote, that's a debate, where expertise have its place. Delete this article is a very "English/western centered" position. The minimum is to userfy the page in user:Asoer space, to let him, the author of this page, complete calmly his work. --Yug (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done, now at User:Asoer/Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, efficient & time saving reaction. thanks! Yug (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (seriously, as of 2010 on wikipedia : that's nice to solve opposition that fast.... ! so thanks !)[reply] You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final result: Userfied here.

Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art

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

This article is very much written in an essay style. In addition it is difficult to tell how relevant/reliable the references are because they are generally not in English. I'm not even sure that the title is correct, and/or if the information here should be merged into another article. The only contributor to this article (who does have significant edits elsewhere) created a "main article" link from East Asian calligraphy, but there's little in this article that isn't already in that article. This is probably a weak AFD, so maybe someone will see it and rescue it, but primarily this nomination is on the grounds of no indication the information warrants its own article, as most of the info is in the parent article. — Timneu22 · talk 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "debate" mentioned in the title seems to originate more in the author's mind than in any source he references. The article seems to go a very long way to say "handwriting is prosaic, calligraphy is art". The author's interpretation of the word calligraphy as meaning "hand written" is incorrect, as the term actually means "beautifully written". As this term and the author's misconception about its true meaning seem to be at the heart of the "debate", the article is pretty much meaningless from the very start. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator, it appears to be an essay, possibly original research, with inaccessible sources for most English speakers. If there is such a debate in scholarly circles, information about it in English should be available.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having english sources isnt very strong criteria for deletion WP:NONENG.

Comment - perhaps. But the lack of sources is. There are essentially 2 cites. The first footnote is not a cite; some Chinese book (something scholarly?) from 1936 is cited twice (zero page reference, for something in 3 volumes it's too vague to call verifiable), then some video (not the most convenient format) from a source of hard to assess reliability is cited 5 times. Given the extensive amount of scholarly research in East Asian studies, it'd be surprising, if the debate was notable, that there would be no English sources at all.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ESSAY it's essentially the basic arguments of Art applied to a specific topic. --Savonneux (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm the user who lead and wrote most (by far) of East Asian calligraphy. This debate issue was too longly state by User:Asoer to stay in the core article, so I summarized it and I moved the it to a separate article, but this is, for sure, a real debate in Chinese calligraphic circles. This article need clean up (essay style, add sources), yes. But please don't use English web for this issue, most English articles on-line about Chinese arts are exaggerating and advertisement oriented. Yug (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with suggestion The way the article is written and the obscurity of the topic attracts the eyes of nonspecialists who are therefore inclined to suggest that this article be deleted. This debate leaves such a small footprint that there is basically no way you'll know of it unless you can speak/read Chinese and you're specifically looking for it. Consider naming the article "Definition and classification of Chinese calligraphy." (Sources cited in the article are specifically about writing Han characters and no other scripts.) Within, you may write about the debate/disagreement. Right now, I find it is of sufficient length to have its own article. You may want to summarize even further on East Asian calligraphy. Furthermore, as suggested above, the lack of English sources (or any sources) is not grounds for deletion of content. But this is part of a bigger problem on Wikipedia, which I'll write about in Talk:Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art. Asoer (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original nomination was primarily for "lack of information warranting its own article." I still stand by this; there is very little extra in this article that's not in the primary article. I also stick by the WP:ESSAY comments, but those aren't as important to this AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is indeed a significant topic, however incorporating it into the East Asian calligraphy article would make a long article even longer. But if all else fails, merge with main article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, most of this is already in the main article. And this isn't paper, so article length isn't a good keep reason. — Timneu22 · talk 12:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of balance. This debate is a minor, very peripheral, meaningless experts' debate. This debate is not as important as the Four treasures, the Scripts, Techniques, Evaluation, etc. Accordingly, it just need a quick citation in East Asian calligraphy, and not 20 lines, which may have their own article. Yug (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY, WP:NONENG, and WP:OR. This article is quite small and, whatever info that can be reliably sourced could easily be merged into Calligraphy#Eastern Asian calligraphy or some other appropriate parent article. The title of this article and its contents are original research, and no information regarding this debate can be obtained in reliable sources. SnottyWong talk 23:18, 8 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) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Morgan

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

Non notable artist. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to demonstrate how WP:GNG or other guidelines are met. Nuttah (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources. SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:37, 4 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. "It's useful" is, for better or worse, not a convinving argument to keep something. Wikipedia is not here to spread the word about budding concepts- we report after independent, reliable sources have shown the topic is important, not before. Courcelles (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trance metal

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

I really do hate to put articles up for deletion, but this article has no reliable sources and is entirely OR. There is no proof that this is an actual form of music. RG (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Metal Hammer Magazine statement about trance metal genre reliable source, this can be read in their magazine? Little bit googling about trance metal and you find lot of talk about the genre and lot of bands that use this to descripe their music. I would say that it must stay since it is growing genre. Articalhero (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articalhero is right. Maybe the decision of Trance metal being sucessful is done here in WP, and I do not want this genre die like oldschool Rap Metal.--188.100.178.7 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this "genre" is notable and verifiable. Prolog (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the usual outcome for new, unverifiable genres (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk). Bearian (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable, lot of artist use this to descripe their music. 212.149.234.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as this article has indeed helped me to discover artists in this genre that I would not otherwise have learned about. Its a useful resource, and should definately stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.217.165 (talk) 15:29, 4 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 withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Nasir

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

I'm not sure on this one. I declined a BLP PROD and added a couple of sources, but I can't find any substantial or in depth coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question The gold medal in the Asian games: are you asking for more notability or more reliable sources? It is not clear to me why you have this article in AFD. jmcw (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she appears to be a professional athlete competing at a high level (the South Asian Games) and having won a gold medal there. Also, if the "sports ambassador" title is anything important, that would be notable too. —fetch ·comms 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NSPORTS is not yet fully released, but clearly winning a gold medal in a multi-nation competition will qualify under those newer, tighter regulations than the more generic terms of WP:ATHLETE. Sourcing clearly indicates she has. As for professionalism, the source I added indicates she was awarded 1 million Rs by her country's president. I don't know how much that is in real money but it sure sounds like its worth something in her country. Absolutely no reason to delete or even be nominated.Trackinfo (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say her notability might be questionable under WP:MANOTE, but the honors she received certainly show that her country considers her notable and the combination of awards and athletic achievement is enough for me. Papaursa (talk) 21:12, 3 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 Joe Spencer (Hollyoaks). Tim Song (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Millburn

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

Non-notable minor actor. The only sources are IMDB and two articles each making one passing mention of Millburn. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not had multiple major roles. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. --Triwbe (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination & WP:ENTERTAINER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Spencer (Hollyoaks), the character for which Milburn has any note. He was already mentioned in the lede of that article because of that role,[9] so I was a bit bold and pre-emptively merged a bit from the Matt MIllburn stub into the Joe Spencer article... and so slightly expanding the lede where Matt was already mentioned... but I did not include the trivia about his brother.[10] Aplogies to Greg Milburn, but he has his own article where Matt can be mentioned. Editors are welcome to revert, but I believe a redirect now best serves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 3 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. If anyone wants to see what they can do with the article in user space, please just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escort Ireland

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

Escort agency of little to no notability, fails Wikipedia:Notability Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prostitution in the Republic of Ireland (submitted on behalf of 86.45.164.127 [11] not necessarily my opinion Active Banana (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, borderline speedy IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, and appears to be (or was until recently) thinly veiled advert for prostitution service. Snappy (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment before this gets closed under "speedy", I am wondering if those claiming there is no notablility did any searching? [12] at least half the hits on the first and second pages appear to contain data in reliable sources about this business. I am reviewing now to see which may contain useable encyclopedic content. Active Banana (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a number of third party sources have been added. People may wish to revisit their positions of "non-notable". Active Banana (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources provide verifiability not notability. This question is, is this website notable? or is it one of a squillion similar websites offering the same kind of services? Snappy (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out that there are a number of similarly named sites and from the news stories used as sources it is not always clear which site they are talking about. Even from the start with the page name and all text references were "Escort Ireland" when the Albright founded site is "THE NOT SAFE FOR WORK ADULT SITE Escort-Ireland" I would not be opposed to a delete with the potential for return for whichever company is able to indicate notability (and I feel that the site that was the host of the material whcih was the basis of the first Irish Internet Libel case is notable, I just cant at this time verify which escortireland.com / escort-ireland.com /escortireland.ie etc. holds that claim.) Active Banana (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notability at all, not a socialized group. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Minima c (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/change: The website would be an obvious candidate for deletion but for the fact that it is so frequently mentioned by journalists documenting the phenomenon of prostitution and trafficking abuses in Ireland, as well as by Ruhama, the Irish organization which, in its own words, "works on a national level with women affected by prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation". There are five mentions in the Irish Times, 42 articles in The Irish Independent, six appearances in The Examiner, five in the Sunday Business Post, five at breakingnews.ie, and even one in the Belfast Telegraph. There are, in addition, discussions of the website in the British media, as documented by the References section of the article. The website has been elevated to notability by journalists and appears twice, also, at the anti-trafficking site, Ruhama. Finally, the website is discussed in an international academic investigation by London Metropolitan University (page 21). The website is not socially esteemed, but it has been, undoubtedly, the object of frequent discussion at a national level in Ireland in a wide variety of newspapers — and elsewhere — and thus it is notable. I am inclined to keep the article on this basis but to remove the External links section so Wikipedia is neither an advertising hoarding nor unwittingly a party to human trafficking. --O'Dea (talk) 09:42, 7 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) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Saxton

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:N as having not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This player is yet to play a senior match, let alone a professional one. Clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:19, 2 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold "Butch" Hendershot Jr.

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

Delete There is nothing indicating the sort of significance required for a Wikipedia article. WP:POLITICIAN says "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability", and there is nothing else in the article to suggest notability. Several articles at times-news.com are cited as references, but most of them give only brief mentions of Hendershot, and one does not mention him at all. The article mentions his "now famous" Bricklayers Speech, but various Google searches have failed to find anything relevant except for this Wikipedia article. For example, "Bricklayers Speech" Hendershot produced nothing except the Wikipedia article, Bricklayers Speech Hendershot produced nothing relating to this particular Hendershot except the Wikipedia article, and so it went on with other search terms, so it is questionable how "famous" the speech is. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Harold "Butch" Hendershot has been speedily deleted under CSD A7 (does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). I think this article could well be speedily deleted under the same criterion too. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure puffery. Almost worth preserving as an example of how not to write an encyclopaedia article. Not quite, though... Peridon (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local politician with scant verifiability, just a few articles in his local newspaper (ironically, that paper is owned by the same parent company as the one for which I work). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A much too-local politician to be notable. First Light (talk) 04:21, 3 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 keep #1: I am withdrawing my nomination, and nobody else has a recommendation to delete. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hobson (actor)

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

Actor with minor parts only and no cited sources to back them up. Fails notability and verifiability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Award-nominated actor. I'll work on it now, C.Fred. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Okay... I sourced the award nomination and expanded and cleaned up the article, turning this into THIS. His early television career as a child actor was steady but not too glamorous... but after graduating from Yale University in 2004 he got into theater and began getting more serious attention. His more recent work in The Fresh Beat Band has finally gotten him attention for his television work. But as he did keep active and receive notice for his stagework after 2004, it might seem that his combined theatrical and television career pushes at WP:ENT, though he's weak on WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His work on The Fresh Beat Band is now painted in enough context to show that how he is significant. I now feel that the best course of action is to improve the article, not delete. As nobody else has !voted to delete the article, I am withdrawing the nomination and closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 3 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. G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement Taelus (Talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humanistic Management

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

This appears to be an essay or WP:OR. The article says it's in the middle of major revamp, but that was over a week ago. No references, no indication of importance, nothing worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a number of writers have used the term "humanistic management" in books and articles, it is not a clearly defined concept with an agreed definition like for example total quality management. TFD (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced OR. Hairhorn (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more to add here Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation of Introduction to Humanistic Management in Practice as revealed in excerpt shown as first result of this Google search. WCityMike 23:45, 1 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) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rastabonzai

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rastabonzai

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

This article is about a reggae band that does not meet either the general notability guidelines or music notability guidelines. I can find no coverage in reliable sources for this band. If the assertion of headlining major reggae festivals as claimed in the article were true, I'd expect to see this with at least entries in event announcements. There is no evidence of charting songs, awards or other recognition. They did put out two studio albums and a live album on the Mango label, but that does not appear to be a major label that would satisfy criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC. Whpq (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the releases are unverifiable, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC and all other guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 19:10, 6 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Semiotics of Montessori Materials

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

Original research/synthesis MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good god: essay, OR, unencyclopedic... Delete. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 1 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. Akirn (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Wollaston

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

Conspiracy theorist of no apparent notability. No sign in GNews; all sources are to YouTube or some conspiracy site. I also see no notability for his practice as an architect. Not to be confused with the painter John Wollaston. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Publisher seems non-notable. Of course I only say this because I am part of the world wide conspiracy to suppress all knowledge of his work. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources that are independent of the subject... both the YouTube link and the website source seem to be self-published by the subject himself (and focused primarily on selling the subject's book. WP:NOT advertisement.) Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources write about him, and his books were self-published.[13]. Fences&Windows 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a great business model for self-publishing authors. Write about conspiracies, and then blame the evil forces behind the putative conspiracy for the low sales of your book. Classic, absolutely classic. Em-jay-es 04:18, 2 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Royal Hotel

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

Contested PROD - Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:N. Codf1977 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Copy-vio from WikiPilipinas, a GFDL wiki. - Gabby 21:02, 6 May 2010 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant advertising Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daekiss albums

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

Several problems with this article: the apparent lack of an article for the band itself, the lack of notability for the band (and thus their albums), the complete lack of any sources or third-party references, the advertising nature of the MySpace, ReverbNation, and other links. There is just no reason for this list of albums by a band without a page, and no references cited. This could probably go speedy... — Timneu22 · talk 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changed from "Daekiss album" to "Daekiss albums", as user created second article. (I nominated first for CSD as duplicate.) — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adding Daekiss to list of AFDs here... apparently all these articles are a single-purpose account. — Timneu22 · talk 14:08, 1 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalkey

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

Article is written like an advert, has no third-party references, and was created by User:Digitalkey. Was already speedied once. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An average product in a crowded field, with no claim to historical, technical, or cultural importance: a digital modular system for safekeeping of keys and valuables assets using electrical key control systems... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and lacking references to suggest otherwise; plus I just blocked the creator. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources. Dewritech (talk) 19:36, 1 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) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe (Pink Floyd song)

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONGS, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs was to redirect to album per policy. John (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was not even discussion about this song, let alone consensus at WP:FLOYD. I posted this here originally, but another user decided to move it below, to a less conspicuous spot.Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#Song pages and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Breathe for more arguments to delete. --John (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: There was not even discussion, let alone consensus, about this song at WP:FLOYD.Mk5384 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut the shit, huh? Above, John says that at WP:FLOYD, there was consensus to redirect this song. I have pointed out that not only was there no consensus; it wasn't even discussed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you need to be civil. That was completely unnecessary. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely unnecessary for you to move it.Mk5384 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly explained it the edit summary why I moved it. Sheesh. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's the bit that applies from NSONGS: "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". It would be great if those wishing to keep this could explain hows an article like this relates to this. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not a stub. It has "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song has been "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". This is not "most songs". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's where we disagree. I guess my delete rationale is that articles like this are effectively sub-stubs, once you discount material that is or could be in the album article, and also that they can inherently never be developed beyond stubs. They should not exist unless there is sufficient sourced material that is of interest to an encyclopedia yet would not fit on the album article, and this is the intention of WP:NSONGS. That, I do not see at present, though of course YMMV. WP:INHERITED and User:Kww's excellent arguments below also sum up my feelings on this one. --John (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The statement that there should be an article if "there is sufficient sourced material, ect., yet would not fit on the album article", is your opinion, and not part of WP:NSONGS.Mk5384 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is notable; the article is cited. There appears to be no such consensus and no breach of WP:NSONGS. Attempts to redirect to Dark Side of the Moon or to PROD it have both been opposed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As a track on one of the most famous albums of all time, its inherently notable, cited or not. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless policy is to eliminate all pages about individual songs. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the song is notable, the article is obviously not a stub, there are citations, the album article does not include the same cited material, and the nominator is unable to point to any consensus in the lengthy Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs that I can perceive which is pertinent to this particular article. (I would have thought WikiProject Pink Floyd would be devoted to adding material and citations and improving coverage of the ouevre rather than the opposite.) Occuli (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A song notable in its own right. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually neutral about this because the song wasn't a single and doesn't seem to have widespread coverage in reliable sources. By the way, not to start an argument, but I would like to say something to two editors:

Parrot of Doom: That isn't a very good "keep" rationale; see WP:INHERITED.

Let me say it this way then - I own quite a few Floyd-related books, and I could very easily create a GA out of that song article. I'm not going to, frankly because there are more interesting things for me to do, but there is no shortage of coverage of this song in places where those who know where to look, do so. Parrot of Doom 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, right below WP:INHERITED is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES! I don't see how the article could ever aspire to be a GA. If nobody is ever going to develop it beyond its current state, it's tempting to think it can't ever be developed beyond that stage. Hence the nomination. --John (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions" - I'd hardly include the list of print sources I've used in The Dark Side of the Moon as unreliable, and I know for a fact that John Harris says quite a bit about "Breathe". Perhaps, rather than simply redirecting the page, you might first try expanding it yourself? Parrot of Doom 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite: I think you might have missed the point of WP:NSONGS.

--Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - song has had some coverage and is in one of the most famous albums by Pink Floyd. However, sourcing could definitely be improved.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeping our legs on the ground (as it were!), most of the coverage for most of the songs on this album is coverage of the album, the songs being part of the album. Potentially, all of these songs could be merged into The Dark Side of the Moon (or perhaps The Dark Side of the Moon (analysis) or some such). Just because a song is famous, doesn't mean that it will automatically have its own coverage in sources, especially if that song is a track from a concept album. This is exactly analogous, IMO, to having four different articles for each of the individual movements of Beethoven's most famous symphonies. In fact, even the opening movement of the Fifth and the last movement of the Ninth don't get individual articles. In truth, only one of the songs from DSOTM is heard very often divorced from the album, viz "Money". I am not saying delete/merge/redirect here as I suspect there will be more sourcing about this song (rather than the album) out there, we just need to find it. I do think too many here are getting a bit carried away with the moment, though: "Breath must be famous, it's on a famous album by a famous band!!!" or whatever. I almost posted words to that effect. The song is certainly "notable" in the dictionary sense; whether it is notable in the WP sense is yet to be seen. The article only has three sources so far, only one of which I can personally verify (Allmusic). The coverage in the other sources might be trivial for all I know. Also, I might point out that John has been incredibly bold and redirected most of side two to the album's article. Just out of interest, is Pigsonthewing the same Andy Mabbett that wrote The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd? Not that it matters (the author of that book wrote it long before WP and doesn't have any obvious COI here), I am just curious that no one has asked about this yet or attempted to use it against Andy's !vote! --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent albumNeutral: [{WP:NSONGS]] is quite specific about what songs qualify for individual articles, and arguments to keep this one need to refer to that guideline. What I see about is essentially "I like it and it's famous", which is not the stuff of which policy arguments are made. From WP:NSONGS:

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Specifically states that the requirements for songs include WP:N. The requirements laid down by WP:NSONGS are in addition to WP:N.

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."

Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.

"Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.

So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified. This song doesn't seem to meet those conditions.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It meets all these conditions, as explained in detail by multiple editors above. This afd seems to be based on complete and wilful ignorance. A google search on Breathe "Pink Floyd" gets around 10^6 hits: I have not sifted through all these but expect some of them will have some merit. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where the song has charted, has had recordings issued by multiple artists, or won awards. If you can show that it meets any one those three, I will change my !vote to keep.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will withdraw the nomination, which is based on a failure to meet WP:NSONGS. If it can be shown that it does in fact meet NSONGS, obviously this nomination would be moot. I do not believe that it can, and I believe all the opposition so far to redirecting this shows fundamental misunderstanding of NSONGS. Prove me wrong, and improve the article to reflect the notable awards the song has won, the music charts it has been listed in as a single, and the bands who have released versions of it, and we can close early. --John (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed one of the covers: the cover by Sea of Green may be enough to squeak it past WP:NSONGS. The two off of tribute albums don't count for much in my view. The real question is whether one cover by an obscure band meets "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". I'd still say not.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of vote change:I believe in following guidelines, and I'm pretty strict about it. I think the intent of WP:NSONGS was to eliminate articles about songs like this one: completely unremarkable individual tracks. That said, people have noted the existence of sufficient cover versions that I think it meets the "performances by multiple notable artists" for extremely low values of "notable." I'd rather the article didn't exist, but the topic squeaks past WP:NSONGS. I will point out that the intent of that is to allow discussion of the cover versions, and hope one of the editors so intent on keeping this article will modify it to actually discuss the cover versions that justify the article's existence.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song is notable (thought the lack of citations may say otherwise) redirecting it would result in the loss of most (if not all) of the info that it currently in this article.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that? Information is usually preserved during a WP:MERGE-and-WP:REDIRECT process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've discussed this at WP:FLOYD. John seems to have taken quite an interest in ridding this encyclopaedia of Pink Floyd songs. This helps us how?Mk5384 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has been recorded by Pink Floyd, Roger Waters, and David Gilmour. Right there it seems to meet guidelines.Mk5384 (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily, because Roger Waters and David Gilmour were in Pink Floyd. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were. WP:NSONGS says it must have been performed by several notable bands or people. It says absolutely nothing to the effect that they can not, at one time, have played together.Mk5384 (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but you've left out an important word:

“

...[songs] that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.

”

Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Pink Floyd performed it independently. It appears on the album Dark Side of the Moon. Roger Waters performed it independently. It appeared on the album In the Flesh-Live. David Gilmour performed it independently. It appeared on the album Live in Gdansk.Mk5384 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you know what the policy means by "independent". Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that one user is on a crusade to rid this encyclopaedia of Pink Floyd song articles by following the letter of WP:NSONGS, rather than using common sense. So if we're going to follow NSONGS to the letter, then perfomances by Floyd, Waters, and Gilmour meet the letter.Mk5384 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not "policy", but a guideline, subject to common sense, and occasional exceptions, not to mention WP:IAR.Mk5384 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you shouldn't ignore all rules simply because you like the subject. And where's the proof that the user is a crusade to get rid of Pink Floyd-related articles? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the redirects in this index are the recent work of crusader John (and there are others: see J's contribs around then with the SONGS comment). These are all just 'redirect', not 'merge and redirect' (which requires reflection and effort). I'm surprised that no-one has challenged any of these (some of which may well be non-notable). Marooned ... anyone? Occuli (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PoD has demonstrated that the song is notable and receives non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If it wasn't for the caveat that "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", it would be pretty obvious that this AfD should be swiftly closed. As it is, the article is reasonably detailed and could be still further expanded. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage in WP:RSes. A live performance by another notable artist (Flaming Lips) seems to cap this quite solidly. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another tribute album. I have a hard time counting tribute album covers as counting towards the guideline for the same reason that I don't count phonebooks as contributing to the notability of people: tributes cover everything, regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tributes don't cover "everything". Instead they cover artists' music with a fan base wide enough to merit tribute albums. The phonebook does, indeed, cover (almost) everyone. Tribute albums are only made when an artist feels that another artist is worth covering.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that Pink Floyd isn't notable. Certainly, the existence of tribute albums to Pink Floyd is strong evidence that Pink Floyd is a notable group. I'm not claiming that "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't a notable album, either. However, once someone decides to reproduce the complete album in a different style, they are going to do every song. The existence of Dub Side of the Moon and The Flaming Lips and Stardeath and White Dwarfs with Henry Rollins and Peaches Doing The Dark Side of the Moon show notability for the album, not the individual songs.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting stranger and stranger. Instead of treating the guideline "with common sense, subject to the occasional exception", as WP:NSONGS says, and realising that there's virtually unamious desire to keep, you keep trying to find a way to shoot down each attempt at proof of notability.Mk5384 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am treating it with common sense: there's nothing exceptional about this song that would merit an article, and people aren't demonstrating that there is. No one has made a strong case that this is one of the "occasional exception"s. It's just a track, albeit a track on a notable album by a notable group.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case that this is one of the exceptions is the overwhelming majority of users here. The page is filled with "keeps", (I know; they don't count) and this AfD is not going to carry. I just don't understand it. Oh well.Mk5384 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I referred to had nothing to do with any tribute album. I was talking about the Flaming Lips' live performance of the song on Jimmy Fallon. That's a separate independent performance of the specific song. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a separate independent performance, manifestly. WP:NSONGS makes no mention of tribute albums anyway. There's another cover on Emmerson Nogueira: Ao Vivo ... I await some common sense reading of WP:NSONGS (between or behind or above the lines) to exclude this one, while skipping over WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At least the Chinese seem better informed. Occuli (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, this is approaching the point of absurdity. There is overwhelming consensus to keep, yet "only votes that conform to policy count". (Made up rule) "Breathe" has been performed, and recorded independently by Roger Waters and David Gilmour, both of whom have solo careers outside of Pink Floyd that span decades. That doesn't count because "they were both in Pink Floyd". (Made up rule) The song has been performed, and recorded independently by numerous artists, but "tribute albums don't count". (Made up rule) When it was pointed out that the article is not a stub, "then it's a 'sub stub". (Made up rule) The song is somehow qualified for its own article only if "the information won't fit in the album article". (Made up rule) And this debate begins with John saying that he had consensus to redirect it at WP:FLOYD, when this song wasn't even mentioned there. Notability has been proven; there's clear consensus to keep. It's become humorous.Mk5384 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't clear consensus to keep; there are clear votes to keep. And if you think the first point in your previous paragraph is a made-up rule, you clearly didn't read the tag at the top of the page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor (the one who moved by post about no discussion at WP:FLOYD to a less prominent place in this article), has now gone to my talk page, and accused me of making personal attacks.-LOL-As this article is cruising to an easy keep, there's not much need for me to post further here, and risk allowing myself to be baited into something.Mk5384 (talk) 07:39, 4 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion vehicle

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

DePRODDED by article creator, my concern remains that this is a clear case of WP:NEO. My Google search does not reveal real-world notability for this as a class of cars: the article creator is attempting to coin a classification that groups internal combustion and hybrid vehicles, however this is not a widely used term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real-world use of this term. — Timneu22 · talk 13:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposedly a name for the vehicles that we all drive that are powered by an internal combustion engine. Not only an unnecessary article, but there's no evidence that this made-up term has ever been used by anyone, nor likely to ever be used. Not only is it inaccurate, it would never be used by the auto industry, due to the mental image that it conveys of something bursting into flames (consider spontaneous combustion for instance). I think of the Ford Pinto when I think of a "combustion vehicle". Mandsford 15:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A coal burning steam locomotive or a wood burning Mark Twain style riverboat also was powered by external "combustion," and rockets are powered by "combustion," but the article creator apparently wants to stick to internal combustion. The article covers ground better covered by Internal combustion engine. It appears to be a nonnotable neologism. Edison (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and of little value. If there was any useful content (and I think there is none), I would suggest merger with internal combustion engine, which is what the article seems to be about. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. First Light (talk) 04:23, 3 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Yugoslavian republics and states

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

content fork ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please elaborate on "content fork"... Is this material presented on another page? Certainly a comparative analysis of the demographic composition of the countries which composed the former Yugoslavia would be a very worthy topic for a page. If this page already exists under another title — what's the title? And if it's not already extant, this is a poor first effort which should be marked as a stub and kept. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page existed for about a year and is still an unsourced stub. A "Breakup of Yugoslavia" article already exists, if you wish you could merge it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Original research. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the nomination is somewhat dubious (content fork of what?), the article introduces a novel subject ("How are the former Yugoslav republics faring compared to each other after the breakup of Yugoslavia?"). And does it rather badly too, I don't see any salvageable content. GregorB (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and ~~delete~~ redirect with Breakup of Yugoslavia. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:24, 2 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically human basic need

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

This page was already previously deleted. To my astonishment, speedy was declined this time. There is no indication why or how the topic is important/notable, or even how the title is specifically related to the text. If there is anything worth saving in this article, it should be in the short Laszlo Garai article. There's no reason to keep this around as a stub or redirect. The page should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, the title sounds like basic human needs but the content, in as much as I can make head or tail of it after the user has made several deleted attempts at this article, is about one person's esoteric definition of the term "Specifically human basic need".

According to a hypothesis of Laszlo Garai, a paradoxical need for a needfree activity is specific for humans and basic for their other needs. The structure of the hypothesized need is isomorphic with that of the work considered as a "specifically human basic activity" and defined as that of arranging in one and the same structure ends and means[1]. The hypothesis is based on the activity theory of Alexei Leontiev[2].
— Article content as of 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the text is basically incomprehensible, Google finds "Specifically+human+basic+need"&safe=off&start=60&sa=N 25 unique hits, many of which seem to track back to Wikipedia. It does not look to me as if it even merits a redirect. The user seems to be handling issues with the content by the expedient of ignoring them. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term does appear in one journal article on Google Scholar, but I don't think the term itself is sufficiently notable for a redirect or article (nor distinct enough from similar terms by other psychologists). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is either patent nonsense or someone's idiosyncratic jargon that conveys no information in the absence of needed context. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability (and no speedy criteria apply). Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Szalagloria" (the editor who created the article) is an anagram of "Laszlo Garai". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That might explain why all this account ever does, on multiple language Wikipedias, is promote the work of Laszlo Garai. Probably the same individual as Garai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then. Guess who created the article on Laszlo Garai? Guy (Help!) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone going to report this self-promo stuff? — Timneu22 · talk 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already left a COI notice on Szalagloria's talk page. Szalagloria sort of shrugged it off, but on the other hand, he has not since edited the article(s) in question. The Garai account has not made any edits in over three years, but I just left a COI notice for that account, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the article on him. I think he is probably notable, but that article could be nominated for AfD if in doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 3 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hall Kart Racing School

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

Declining A7 - multiple notable people have used this company. Declining G11 - no promotion apparent. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:ORG
with regard to notable people have use[ing] this company as per WP:ORG :

“

No inherited notability

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner.

”

notable people using Jim Hall Kart Racing School does not make Jim Hall Kart Racing School notable. Codf1977 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hall Kart Racing School is notable, it is the biggest most used karting school in the US. Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the reliable sources that back up that statement, as I can't find any. Codf1977 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one, not the same phrasing but it still implies notability, [14],pg 85(Longest running facility)Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you might call a serious publication, what with the overview saying "An entertaining collection of 101 quintessential places, people, events, customs, lingo, and eats that help define the personality of the Golden State."; however IMO not enough to demonstrate notability as set out in the general notability guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the claim to notability of this company is based on the notability of some of the past customers - Do you have non-primary sources for this list ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking.Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes professional schools notable in the RW, ultimately, is that they have a substantial number of significant graduates--that's their basic reason for existence. But in this subject, I am unable to judge if the specifics here are actually sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment with regard to A7 vs WP:ORG, if there's a possibility of notability, then A7 is not appropriate. Having had a significant number of notable graduates/participants means that there's a possibility of notability, though not a guarantee. Hence my decline of speedy and elevation for discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this article is an obvious advertisement for a non-notable business. No reliable, secondary sources discuss this business in any detail. Miserably fails all aspects of WP:CORP. SnottyWong talk 23:38, 8 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniva

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

Contested speedy, elevating for discussion, but looks nn to me. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was already speedily deleted yesterday (albeit created by a different editor), and the "new" version has the same problems as the old version. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:45, 1 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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Hagyard

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

Unnotable actor. Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER, Without significant coverage in reliable, third-party quality sources, cannot meet our Policy regarding living people. The series itself is, of course, notable, but it had over 120 cast members, and its notability does not confer to them all. Hagyard, like many, received no significant coverage for her role nor her life after. It should be noted that the article was created by an editor with the same name whose only edit was to make this article. Prod removed by new editor User:Iftelse with claim of "well-known Canadian actress, rm PROD". However, as noted, she has no significant coverage. I found one brief mention in Alanis Morissette: A Biography[15], no news coverage, and no reliable sources that can even confirm her other claimed voice work. Despite the article claims, IMDB's listings show that she did minor voice work for the listed series, except For Better Or For Worse, which was not a "series" rather a couple of animated specials. Again, without actual significant coverage in reliable sources, she is not notable, and the article cannot meet WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, [16], [17], and two ACTRA Awards: [18]. The article should be re-written with these and some other sources. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of those appear to be local sources, which do not work to establish notability for a person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO because of the ACTRA awards. decltype (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources indicated above. They aren't small town papers discussing the local high school play. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solid keep per diligent WP:AFTER of Joshua Scott. ACTRA Awards allow individual to meet WP:ANYBIO, and coverage in reliable sources from 1975 through 2010 exceeds WP:GNG... and with a weekly circulation of nearly a million, the Ottawa Citizen is not exactly some small-town local paper. Notability in Canada is emminently notable for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much to say here that isn't obvious-- major awards, coverage in reliable sources, high-profile roles... Yet someone wants to delete? Wow... Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage notwithstanding, individuals who have won notable awards (in this case ACTRA Awards) have in the past been near-universally considered notable. Re: local notability, "local" is defined in Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) as a city, town, village, metropolitan area, or other similar localized region, and goes on to say "Articles on local interests are perfectly acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia." A reading of the rest of that policy makes it clear it's attempting to cover similar sort of ground to WP:MILL - that is, to say that while a thing may receive significant coverage, it may nevertheless be run-of-the-mill if that coverage is all from its immediate community. Coverage throughout a major city or the entirety of a state is not local coverage; there is no evidence to suggest this actress or the ACTRA awards are in any sense "run-of-the-mill" or "of interest only to a small community". For transparency's sake, I should say I was alerted to this discussion by MichaelQSchmidt, who did not appear to be expecting me to vote either way but was merely looking for my opinion on the underlying notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, purposely not seeking AFD input, I was hoping DFW might simply advise in how I might further improve the article, just as I also discussed this article with the nominator at User talk:AnmaFinotera (diff). I'd like it to be as good as it can be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but switch to the newer citation system so we can use reflist. The sources look good to me, I would like to see more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... or in this case, you must mean "{{reflist|refs= }}" as created in September '09... I don't use that one until I have at least 10 references... and so... having 11, I just incorporated it.[19] Thanks for the reminder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major newspaper covers the person, they are notable. Dream Focus 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editor DustFormsWords. Possibly the 'legal problem' section could be removed if anyone considers it unduly negative. Otherwise a very nice article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted when I removed the PROD, she is a well-known Canadian actress. Iftelse (talk) 16:27, 4 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) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solargard level crossing protection

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

This page appears to be little more than advertising. DiverScout (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVERT unless much more substantive content is added before AFD closes. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 1 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 all to Westwood College. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood College School of Justice

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

Tertiary education establishment which does not meet WP:N, as there is no significant coverage in sources independent of itself. Proposed deletion was contested with the claim that "All colleges are notable" which is, quite frankly, nonsense. Claritas § 07:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I am also nominating the following similar articles for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I absolutely HATE the fact that this is a call for multiple deletions with one nomination. Each should get its own and be considered on it own merits — as a principle. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, Merge All into the main Westwood College page — which somebody not affiliated with the school needs to edit hard, as it sounds like an advertisement. And "All colleges are notable," by the way. But departments of "colleges" like this one are not... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going off-topic, but WP:ORG makes no indication that "All colleges are notable". I'd be very surprised if there were tertiary education establishments which didn't meet WP:GNG, but there's not any consensus that they are inherently notable. If they were, we'd have a serious problem with deleting articles on Diploma mills. Maybe all accredited colleges are notable ? It gets a bit more complicated. Claritas § 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are repeated discussions of that issue, for example recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines. My own reading is that consensus is a little muddy at the margins, but leans heavily toward a presumption of notability for institutions that are authorized to grant degrees. That's just my reading, however. In any event Westwood College itself is pretty clearly notable under WP:GNG, which should solve the immediate issue of what to do with these spinoff articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Westwood College. No need for these spinoff articles, which re-hash, at unnecessary length with excessive promotional detail, information also contained in the main article (which does indeed need a trim). I'd also support the same treatment for Westwood College School of Technology, not mentioned above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll include that in the listing. Thanks. Claritas § 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Westwood College. (I agree with Arxiloxos.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Westwood College. I'd say merge but there is nothing of substance in these articles, they are all fluff and advertising. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge all These are not independent institutions; whether such specific schools of a university are notable depends on the importance of the schools and of the university. I don't think that there is any evidence that these schools are sufficiently important to justify separate articles. These is confirmed by the fact that the various articles have almost nothing specific to say, other than what pertains to the university as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge after re,moving spam. Wikipedia is not a prospectus. Nuttah (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Westwood College School of Technology was not tagged for AfD until today. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:47, 7 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Primeau

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

Declining Speedy G11. Elevating to AFD for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 13:55, 1 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit Networks in an Age of Globalization

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

This article appears to be an essay paper, and google searches for the topic show that there is much similarity between this and the PDFs in the results. This is WP:OR, and not presented in an encyclopedic manner. There's no typical intro, every section is a hyperlink, and no indication why this topic is important. In short, this is an essay and should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if the article could be sourced, wikified and so on it would only be suitable for merging with, say, organized crime. Right now there's nothing to merge, nothing to keep, no sources. Huon (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all above, and this text tiptoes around what it means by "illicit networks". It's June now, so the Age of Globalization is over anyways; we're now in the Second Pre-Cambrian Era. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 1 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 Enigma^msg 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Henley

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

Footballer yet to make senior debut. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Yet to make a senior appearance. noq (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never played professionally, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage to merit keeping the article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Alio The Fool 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails ATHLETE, coverage is general sports journalism only. Recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG due to lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 11:56, 5 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 all. Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing in Consumer Products

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

4 Hard to classify pages. They look like copyright violations, but I have been unable to indetify thesource for them. But a starting sentence like "Consumer products are divided into three categories: detergents, personal care products, and cosmetics." (from Mixing in Consumer Products) is unlikely to be used in a newly written, general article, and appears to come from some handbook. The images used are obvious violations though. Anyway, the subjects are of very limited notability, and have titles with sometimes little relation to the content (e.g. Mixing in Bulk Chemicals, which is about food.) The references are sometimes missing (Mixing in Mineral Processing) Fram (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Mixing in Bulk Chemicals
Mixing in the Oil and Gas Field
Mixing in Mineral Processing
Userfy all of these. I was actually fairly surprised to read this, which does in fact seem to contain interesting and informative discussions on how various products are mixed. These titles are not good, though, and the information contained here probably would serve better scattered on more notable subjects (e.g. our article on toothpaste does not contain a great deal of data on the ingredients used or how it is made.) Assuming this is not a copyvio, in which case all bets are off, I'm for preserving the text somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it appears that the author of these 4 articles was not notified of this nomination; I have notified him today, but I suggest that this discussion be kept open for a few extra days to give him an opportunity to respond. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hi Russ, I am new to wikipedia and am unsure of what is wrong with these articles. These articles were given to me by my supervisor and they are our property. The articles were written by the students of my supervisors and is entirely our work. All the work not considered "ours" have been sourced back to the original author of the handbooks or other sources. Please let me know. Thanks. (TheodoreNg (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

'Comment: I have changed the article on Bulk Chemical Mixing to Mixing in the Food Industry. I accidently put this article under the wrong title and another article under bulk chemicals will follow. (TheodoreNg (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete Strong Delete All: WP:HOWTO, plus the articles are apparently "property" of a company, according to author (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 per nom and TheodoreNg's admissions. I would strongly advise TheodoreNg to read these before copying any more of his property into Wikipedia:

SnottyWong talk 23:45, 8 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. After discounting the !votes that either declare this person notable, and the !vote that advises deletion because the voter has never heard of the subject, what we're left with is a rough consensus to delete the article. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kartik Patel

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

I would have prodded this article first had it not been for the precocious editing by the author. The BLP seems like a hoax at the maximum and a clearly non-notable individual at the least. No sources (leave alone RS) of any kind are available. Leave sources, I could find zero web links to the individual. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a hoax, just a rather presumptuous article about a school pupil who fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 11:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if the organization has gained media attention (which is claimed but not verified), the leader is not necessarily notable. ... discospinster _talk 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The leader of the organization has been very notable in the state of Indiana and the metropolitan Chicago area among various student governments. I would say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.58.74 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.81.58.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I live in the state of Indiana and have never heard of the individual or program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.82.231 (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Patel is also known for co-finding the Indiana High School Democrats High School Caucus" - not notable. Another student. feydey (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable enough for an article here. First Light (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patel has made an impact on the student government structure in Indiana. It is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingbongdingdong (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bingbongdingdong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. A far cry from passing WP:POLITICIAN. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in Hendricks County have done business with many student governments all the way up to Lake County by Chicago, I know that Patel's student government structure has gone far with his man being recognized by many of his peers around the country. Also, for the YDA-HSC, I know that he has beena active for many year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.129.214 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 208.119.129.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete falls a long way short of WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 21:05, 5 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Tequila

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

Prod contested by contributor. A previous version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, though that criterion doesn't seem to me to apply to the article's content currently.

This is a drinking game for which I can find no coverage in reliable sources, and which I therefore feel does not meet notability inclusion criteria. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up last weekend; no notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. With drinking games, it'd need some serious GHits to convince me it's worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have played this game many times, it is definately a popular game gathering more followers daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.171.127 (talk) 18:24, 3 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Kamachi

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

Unable to find a single reliable source that discusses or interviews this topic. Indeed, the article itself has no third-party sources. The only external link is to the MySpace article. In short, this AFD is on the grounds that there is no indication of importance or significance, based on the complete lack of sources in the article or via google searches. — Timneu22 · talk 10:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also adding to this AfD :
The Clock of Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Codf1977 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all of their album articles be deleted if the primary band article is? It seems so (A9). — Timneu22 · talk 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably - but as that was a new page thought it best to this AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kay (poet)

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

Unnotable young poet. No books. A few poems published in obscure literary journals. Google on Sarah Kay brings up other Sarah Kays, not her. Unclear what Project V.O.I.C.E is supposed to be, but Google brings up other Project Voices. Herostratus (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. Poetry has changed greatly as an art form in the last 10 years, as some of the most accomplished spoken word poets swear they would never publish a book if given the chance - it makes the work stale and rigid. Sarah Kay is a live performance artist, well-known in New York City and elsewhere. She has been a featured performer at the United Nations launch of the World Youth Report, the Tribeca Film Festival, and hundreds of other venues. For info on project voice, go to project-voice.net. It is an organization that reaches thousands of students per year.

Spoken word poets deserve to be known and recognized, but unfortunately their medium prevents them from having books or other tangible proofs of legitimacy. Ms. Kay has performed on HBO, radio programs like Radio Open Source and world-famous venues like the Bowery poetry club. She is a notable poet, performer, and advocate for teenagers' creative self expression. .

Let me know if you have other concerns before deleting the article. Thank you. -erochelson

Ps Googling Project Voice brings up Sarah Kay's organization as the first hit! And a google search of Sarah Kay poet brings up lots about the poet in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erochelson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject doesn't have to have published to be notable, but she does have to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The subject here is obviously not an unknown, given her HBO appearance, but what we have in the article so far may not be enough to establish her notability in Wikipedia terms. Reviews, interviews, and the like (from significant published sources) could be very helpful to establish notability. (Please see WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CREATIVE for further explanations of the criteria.) I find little of this in an initial search. Can you supply some sources of this nature?--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — several further sources were added by Buckfull since the above Comment — Hebrides (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are now 10 legitimate references supporting this article, including interviews, publshed works, articles, and a tv appearance. Please consider removing the deletion tag from this article Erochelson (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lotta comments. Anyone want to !vote? Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spoken word poets rarely get the coverage as one who might write a book for publication and review... so it is in how her work is recieved as a spoken word poet that the indivdual must be evaluated. The work done in improving the article has convinced me that Wikipedia has a place for her within its pages, and that the project will benefit by allowing this article to remain and grow through continued regular editing. And to User:Erochelson... the tag will remain as long as this discussion is ongoing... but please continue improvements with our blessings. This article might be revisited in a few months to evaluate progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article is significantly improved since AfD. With regard to the original AfD rationale, existence of other people called Sarah Kay (or other projects called Voice) has no bearing on her notability. As a spoken word artist she may not have very much in print, but there are many recordings of her performances on websites such as YouTube, with enthusiastic appreciation and acclaim. It seems to me that she has chosen to pursue her art rather than pursuing publicity, but nevertheless has already achieved sufficient recognition and notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. — Hebrides (talk) 11:07, 4 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Freer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a landslide. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - leading a council is not an automatic indicator of notability, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've never been sure either way about leaders of councils, but he could at the least have a mention in a list of council leaders on the Kettering Borough Council page. However, bear in mind that he lost his position as leader of the council in 2007. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- Being leader might just about make him notable. However, sicne the article tells us nothing about what he has DONE, I cannot support its retnetion unless much improved. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the greater concern here shouldn't be "what he has DONE" but rather "oh look, absolutely no sourcing". Ironholds (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls a long way short of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Nuttah (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ordinarily I would think the leader of a fairly large council would stand a chance on WP:POLITICIAN. But we do need significant press coverage, and tidbits limited to the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph, circulation 22,000, doesn't quite do it for me on that front.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 5 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 Keep. Claritas § 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Shatner

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

~~Actress who fails WP:ENT. Seems to only have had a significant role in one film series - Subspecies (film series). Only sources are IMDB and Memory Alpha (!). Claritas § 08:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actress meets WP:ENTERTAINER in that she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. In addition to her numerous television appearances, she has had the significant role of Rebecca Morgan in notable films Bloodstone: Subspecies II and Bloodlust: Subspecies III. She also had significant (3rd credit) roles in 1995 film The Alien Within (starring Roddy McDowall) and in the 1997 film Surface to Air. Inniverse (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual meets WP:ENT by having done quite a bit more than the nomination impies.[20] More, the provided "Find sources" above show more than enough to improve and source this article... news from 1986 through 2010,[21] and many books.[22] With the greatest of respects to the good faith nomination by User:Claritas, such surmountable issues can be addressed through regular editing... and do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources found - I hadn't spent enough time looking. I'll close the debate as a speedy keep. Claritas § 09:38, 3 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D Bullock

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. Being a local councillor - not enough. Being a cabinet holder - not enough. Being a perennial candidate - not enough. Coverage is by the local newspaper, which is to be expected and hardly sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear WP:POLITICIAN. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN serially non-elected politician. Councillors are generally NN unless for other reasons or particualrly prominent (e.g. leader of the council). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a long way short of meeting WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 20:46, 5 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulator

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

This appears to be a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reliable Google hits, and the references in the article either don't mention the band's name at all or mention unrelated subjects containing the word "stimulator". Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too couldn't find any relevant information about the band. Looks like SPAM. Celtic Lightning (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Bragg

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Contested proposed deletion. The claim that she's been in over 100 films hasn't been substantiated by a reliable source. Claritas § 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The article has very little content (a comment on her breasts and a list of five extremely non-notable films). If the subject becomes notable in the future, recreate with a proper article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No realiable sources to establish that the subject fulfils GNG/PORNBIO notability criteria. EuroPride (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO and general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:48, 4 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tollerman

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

Contested proposed deletion. Sommelier who has received very limited coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously speedy-deleted in September 2008. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about a notable Sommelier who has received a great amount of coverage, including coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the Washington Post [23] and National Geographic Traveler [24]. There are more articles in Spanish, including this interview [25]. Many more links and references are found in the article. There are more than enough sources found to pass WP:GNG. Inniverse (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that Inniverse has now been blocked as a sock puppet account. Tomas e (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly relevant here. There has been no sockpuppetry in this debate, as Inniverse is the only advocate for keeping this article. If sockpuppetry were going on, you'd see plenty more 'keep' votes from new or single purpose accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The so-called "great amount of coverage" seems to consist of mere passing mentions, which fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Did the "keep" proponent above even look at those sources? Washington Post: trivial mention. National Geographic: trivial mention. Keegy: what is this, a blog/community site? Come on. Most of the other references given in the article appear to be local-interest pieces, and this encyclopedia has global scope. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the mentions are trivial. There are scores of references, which taken all together, add up to notability. He also writes wine columns that show up frequently as web hits. Your argument amounts to 'that he is not notable because he has too many trivial references', and that is a nonsensical way to determine notability. The scores of trivial references obscures the non-trivial references. Being successful at promoting his business should not hamper a claim of notability. To have a strong web presence, in my mind, supports his notability (doesn't detract from it). Inniverse (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but regardless of your feelings or mine, scores of trivial mentions do not add up to notability, according to our guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. I believe that the references found support notability. That is why I am arguing for this article to be kept. Have regard for your feelings and trust your instincts. The guidelines are just that - guidelines. Inniverse (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI: [26], Facebook page titled, "Reinstate Nigel Tollerman's entry in Wikipedia!" That page dates back to October 1, 2008, so there must have been a previously deleted article.--Milowent (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [27], French wiki deletion of article from May 2010 (7-1 delete).--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was speedily deleted in September 2008. The deleted article had an uppercase title. The deletion log entry is here. I just noted it at the top of this AfD.

The French article looks like it has been deleted 4 times already since April. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, there is something fishy going on with this article with the constant recreations even though it looks like this person hasn't done anything to merit more than trivial coverage in reliable sources. If he does anything to merit WP:SIGCOV, then there is no reason not to have an article on him. But right now, despite the user(s) constant recreation, there are no sources to make this anything other than an vanity article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amatulic and Agne. Sommeliers would typically achieve notability by winning the International Sommelier of the Year, or writing several notable books, not just by serving or selling wine, or owning stock in a wine selling company. To be frank I don't see a large number of sommeliers making the cut - notable winemakers would vastly outnumber notable sommelier. And the Facebook page doesn't exactly change my mind. Tomas e (talk) 21:39, 7 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.

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 June 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 redirect to Major Bummer. Feel free to merge any usable content from page history. Tim Song (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus Reich

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

Non-notable fictional character - only makes a minor appearance in comic books, no significant coverage in reliable sources - simply fails WP:N. Claritas § 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fictional DC comic book character has a significant "cult" following. Inniverse (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Azviz
Merge - probably to Major Bummer, he seems to only have had one appearance in that comic and a blog posting doesn't really make for a very impressive claim for notability (although the character is a classic and deserves to make a return). (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete- Extremely minor character with no assertion or demonstration of notability. There is just one source, an unreliable one, which only addresses the issue of a "cult following" (unconvincingly). Reyk _YO! 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I was obliged to remove half of the opening paragraph as it was a blatant copyvio. Reyk _YO! 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage does this thing have? [28] is mentioned in the article now, and Google news has another thing posted at shinny robot, it a blog like entry also. If it had a significant cult following, wouldn't more than 787 hits be returned from the general Google search [29]? Not that many people talking about it online it seems. Dream Focus 20:09, 5 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) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Teen Records

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

Non notable company - article almost entirely about Warren Haynes. Codf1977 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nom. Dewritech (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Celli

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

Notability not established. _{BigGayAllison talk} 07:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but I think we could use input from someone quite familiar with Sammarinese football. Searches online indicate that Celli plays for F.C. Domagnano in the Campionato Sammarinese (click on this link and uncollapse the Libertas - Domagnano link for listing of Celli's name). Our article on this league calls it a fully professional league; if true, this would satisfy the inclusion requirement at WP:NSPORTS. However, our list of fully professional football leagues says that the Campionato is partly amateur. If that's right, then the player doesn't satisfy WP:BIO inclusion requirements. I've searched fruitlessly to try and find out which is the case; since I can't find any proof that the league is professional, and since the claim in our Campionato Sammarinese article is uncited, I am leaning toward skepticism and voting delete.

Similarly, the claim that the player has turned out for the San Marino national side would have been enough too to establish notability, but I can find no reliable sources to verify that he actually played for the full national team. He is described as a team member on this website, but I can find no indication of the site's provenance or the reliability of its information. He is not listed on the page of the San Marino team official website. He seems probably to have played for the junior national sides, but WP:NSPORTS says notability derives from having played in an "officially sanctioned senior international competition" (my italics). So I'm going with delete unless someone can prove that the Campionato Sammarinese is fully pro.

I should probably note that my inclination toward delete is shored up by the general lack of news coverage of this person - all the Google News Archive hits for his name refer to someone else. So there's no indication, as far as I can see, of the subject meeting the general notability guideline. Since it's a biography of a living person, I'm all the more keen that claims be verified if the article is kept. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a full article on the Italian wiki Alberto Celli it.wikipedia.org with references. I will see about translating the refs. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my Italian's up to it, it seems to be saying that he got a callup to the full national side for a game against Germany, but never came off the bench - does that cut the mustard for a full international career? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the San Marino league is not a fully professional league, but an amateur league. The article was only changed to "professional" in the last few days, and I have undone this change (and blocked the culprit as a block-evading sock at the same time). So any notability for this player will not come from playing in a professional league, as that is incorrect. Fram (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international appearance in 2006 confirmed by this site. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he actually played that game (btw, are we sure that national-football-teams.com is a reliable source?), he would definitely fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources, which is way more important than a handful minutes in a lone game for San Marino's national team. --Angelo (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - in my experience national-football-teams.com has always been acurate, which would verify the national team appearance, and thus make him pass WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per NSPORTS Futbol, this individual has represented his "country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition". ----moreno oso (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, WP:NSPORTS qualifies that statement: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition... The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." (my emphasis.) I'm not seeing the significant coverage that the condition assumes, so I am still leaving my !vote as delete (setting aside the question of the reliability of that source). Gonzonoir (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You basically made the case with your bolding of "as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". A new or young player is not likely to receive substantial coverage. In essence, the criteria you bolded suggests that by playing in a notable event, the player or coach would have received significant coverage had they been a star player or done something noteworthy in the game. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not, heh. Are you saying that the lack of coverage of this (new, young) player is to be expected and therefore shouldn't be taken as a reason for deletion (because the player is systematically disadvantaged in receiving coverage), or that it is to be expected and therefore should be taken as a reason for deletion? As you can probably tell, I subscribe to the latter interpretation (no coverage, no notability). Gonzonoir (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, by all my edits I disagree to the deletion by the NSPORTS criteria for soccer players. That criteria suggests as per your bolding IMO that the player would have received "significant coverage" which is its threshold for notability. Unfortunately, this AfD has become very convoluted and with jumping around (no reflection on any editor to include me too), the debate items may be hard to discern. I basically re-affirm my Keep based upon Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Football_.28soccer.29, Football (Soccer) - please note, I do not include "Football (Soccer) inside the brackets ala Football (Soccer) which I know how to do. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as far as I can tell, he only played half a match in a friendly against Albania, which is not a "senior international competition" (a qualifier for the EC or the WC could be interpreted as such, but not a friendly). (One of the reasons that friendlies don't count, apart from the lesser importance, is that instead of three, an unlimited (?) number of replacements may be used. In the case of the San Marino-Albania game, apparently 6 substitutions were used by San Marino[30]). For the San Marino vs. Germany 0-13 game, Celli was a bench-sitter, but he didn't play in that game[31]. Looking at the other matches, Celli seems to never have been on the team.[32] So it looks to me as if he played half a game in one friendly, and that's it. Fram (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The San Marino-Albania match is reported as an "A" international by FIFA (you can search for it here: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/index.html). I'm not sure why an "A" international suddenly wouldn't count towards WP:NSPORTS/footy. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must be missing something. I don't see any indication of "A" international, "B" international, or any other category. The only thing I can find is that the match is labeled a "friendly". Footy requires a "competition", so that this match doesn't count for automatic notability is not "sudden" but standard procedure. We are already very lax for people from such minor football countries as San Marino or the Faeroer, in that one minute in an official qualifier is sufficient. Going even further would be unwise, particularly since e.g. this AfD is a prime example of someone playing in a fairly recent friendly and lacking all significant coverage anyway. Fram (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - FIFA doesn't list "B" internationals there. They only list "A" internationals. While I agree that this particular footballer seems to be non-notable, I'm worried that we are changing policy (in the past, play in any FIFA-recognized "A" international match was considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE). Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in past AfDs, one minute of play in a fully pro-league was viewed as sufficient to establish notability. Why is this case different? Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he hasn't played a single minute in a fully pro league, but only in the fully amateur (not even semi-pro) San Marino premier league? San Marino has a population of 30,000, which is obviously insufficient to maintain a full professional football league. His club Domagnano has a 500 person capacity only. The only professional team in San Marino is San Marino Calcio. Fram (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to the population and the status of its league begins the WP:SYNTH theory. But, let's accept that theory that San Marino does not have a fully professional league. In essence, their "highest amateur league" is then the highest amateur level of soccer by that theory. Ergo, to further the syth theory, the individual has played at the highest amateur level available to him in his country. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an accepted rule to include someone. Highest level of a sport internationally, not nationally. As for SYNTH, I just provided logical arguments in a discussion, not content to an article. But if you can provide evidence that the San Marino League is fully professional after all, be my guest. I won't hold my breath. Fram (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that we change WP:ATHLETE from "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." to "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships or San Marino Football League"? Please don't make thgis debate completely ridiculous... Fram (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a rewrite, I would agree. NSPORTS cheapens IMHO the notability of all sports because then the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. If an athlete is deemed WP:N for one minute of play by that criteria, then actors should be noteworthy for one minute of onscreen airtime. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when I quoted NPSPORTS in my Keep argument, I directly quoted its criteria, which I will do again: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition". I accept your debate items without a questioning attitude. I have stayed on-topic and used acceptful debate items. Please don't suggest otherwise. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Fram, I understand now. WP:NSPORTS has a different notability threshhold than WP:ATHLETE did before. I think this is unwise (someone with one "A" international cap for most nations is quite likely to pass the GNG). While Sanmarinese internationals are a likely exception (along with Andorra and some other low-ranked nations), I don't think that change was made with concensus. ~~I won't vote to keep this article as I doubt it will pass GNG, but~~ I think we ought to be careful about the new wording of NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And, I am willing to accept it as a Friendly match as per the suggestion offered. Friendly matches are sanctioned matches with referees, time keepers, scorers, etc. Red cards can and will be enforced at such matches. Goes to NSPORTS. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is the higher requirement. Unfortunately, NSPORTS becomes the qualifying criteria for notability in this article's debate. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Football_.28soccer.29 the soccer criteria is the tripwire. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -seems to meet requirements and is well sourced. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which requirements is it supposed to meet? It doesn't meet WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Football (soccer). Fram (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I'd be happier if real sources were added to indicate his general notability. Sporting notability he does have, with his appearance for San Marino against Albania, per http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.coupe.saint-marin.albanie.34147.en.html , albeit 45 minutes in a friendly. WP:NSPORTS is an essay, not a guideline, and the wording of the football section is still under discussion. The guideline concerning sportsperson notability is still, as I understand it, and for all its faults, WP:ATHLETE, and interpretation of that guideline has always been that full internationals are notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Struway2. WP:NSPORTS wording is unclear and under discussion. WP:ATHLETE has been understood to include any competition in FIFA A-internationals, and Celli satisfies that requirement (even if he only played once). Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe A-international games to be notable - representing your country at full international level. Subjective, maybe, but I don't believe there is a higher level one can play. Satisfied he played per article refs and this to back it up. Celli may not get a whole lot of coverage in England press, however the same argument could be applied to 4th level England players - they never get a mention here. As for the wording of the latest NSPORTS, A-internationals are officially sanctioned by FIFA, the governing body of the sport, results count towards international ranking, international ranking counts toward seeding for international tournaments, therefore, international competition. And anyone who thinks friendly is an alternative term for non-competitive should pull out a video of some recent pre-WC internationals.--ClubOranje^T 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see all people citing either WP:NSPORT or WP:ATHLETE, but not WP:GNG, which is far more important indeed, and actually may overrides any other notability guideline around. Failure in meeting WP:GNG would result in the subject being deemed as non-notable, regardless of the fact he has played 45 minutes with a San Marino jersey, and I do not see anyone showing evidence this subject has actually received significant coverage from independent, reliable, third-party sources. --Angelo (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played a full international, sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 12:00, 5 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. — Scientizzle 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tämä Ikuinen Talvi

(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☯ 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the initial release is viewed as a demo compilation, the second release features revised recordings and would therefore not properly fall into the demo category. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demo was later re-released to commercial distribution. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment - this AfD is illegitimate and should be closed as "moot" because the nominator used a rationale that is not applicable to the album at hand. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How is this rationale not applicable to the album at hand? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC through having been released commercially. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 1 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. Though the debate has not been open long, there's not a snowball's chance that the outcome will now be "delete". Bold NAC by—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

List of public art in Washington, D.C.

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

Very little content, and is any of it notable? I would speedy this, but I'm not sure if it is a valid topic for speedy. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi there. I'm quite surprised to see this. This is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art, and if public art - such as the Washington Monument and the Albert Einstein Memorial are not notable, than all public art lists should be deleted, such as: List of public art in London or Outdoor sculpture in New York City. There is sourcing on each page, and the basis for this list is from the Smithsonian's SIRIS database, and keep in mind, this is a skeleton to be built upon. Thanks for the consideration. Missvain (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this as a topic for a list. I'm sure the individual artworks have been covered in the media or guidebooks. I don't quite understand the editor's plan. Why not just list them by alphabet and give Google-map locations for each? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definable scope, clear selection criteria. Not every item on a list is required to be notable, merely clearly and unambiguously within the selection criteria. See WP:LIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Borderline WP:Almanac, but it's done quite well, although I do have some concerns about ongoing maintenance. A close case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to being clearly within the scope of Wikipedia Saves Public Art, this list also falls under all three categories for the Purposes of lists: Information, Navigation and Development. Wikipedia should be a place that users can come and find information on a public artwork that they've come across, one that very often may not have a label or name. Lists are a great way to find that information. Especially if they know little about the work (usually just the location), they can easily navigate a list in order to find the work. The list also is helpful in development, as it includes red links illustrating articles which need to be created. Until they're created, the list should remain in mainspace so that others can see a comprehensive list of all of the public art in DC. HstryQT (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very puzzling. It appears as if UtherSRG didn't even bother looking at what this list is before suggesting it be deleted. Questioning this list with unsubstantiated claims is at minimum unproductive. Also, I don't understand the maintenance claims made by Shadowjams. This list seems to be ideally suited and constructed for the topic. --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, perhaps, trim down to just 8 internal links with no filling. But, given that wards of DC have no articles about them, some explanation is OK. East of Borschov (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and well-constructed list. Needs to be wikified for individual articles. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You do know we have a GLAM push on, right? And that we're an encyclopedia, and cover this sort of thing as part of what we do? I don't question your good faith, but that you would actually consider this speedy material means that I do have to seriously question your judgement on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to Assume good faith on this one. The page currently has no immediately visible clues that it has to do with GLAM; this could be rectified. (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, absolutely. But I think it's also glaring evidence that UtherSRG has been doing patrol too long and is getting burnt out. It's a prima facie case of complete judgement failure - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously (It drills down to very detailed, very notable sublists). This is a typical problem with WP content split over multiple wikipages. Best duck-tape deletion-prevention solution is to add some kind of wikiproject template, so people see that it belongs somewhere. The belonging isn't entirely obvious from the page itself; I can see how UthurSRG might have failed to figure out how the page was organised whilst on patrol. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I think maybe the nominator didn't realise that the article was actually listing sub-articles where the main body of the work is being collated and that this article is created to make the sub-lists a more managable size. This might explain the "very little content" description. Witty Lama 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is not a list of "Public art," but of the neighborhoods contained in each ward. Then when you click on the Ward, it takes you to a list of random art works, 95% of which are redlinks and probably nonnotable. There would be a place in Wikipedia for one list of the notable (non-redlink) public art in the city. Organization by Ward is very strange. That is a local political boundary system quite unknown to the tourist or artlover, and there is nothing special about "1st Ward Art" versus "2nd Ward Art." Edison (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, but merge from the sublists. The overall notability of the topic is evident—the success of the Wikipedia Saves Public Art venture is undisputed, and this is clearly in that vein—but the content of the article per se (as it stands) doesn't seem to justify the importance of the topic: it doesn't contain any of the relevant information! {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:37, 1 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 Poodle#Poodle mixes. Tim Song (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pugapoo

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

Non-notable dog cross. Not a real breed. Suggest deleting or moving to List of dog hybrids.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKing (talk • contribs)

Delete and then maybe Redirect to List of dog hybrids. There are no reliable sources on this cross, except to confirm that that it is a cross of a Pug and Poodle. "Not a real breed" is not a valid reason for nominating articles for deletion; lack of secondary sources is the only valid reason. "Moving" is just renaming, I think you meant "Redirecting" or "Merging". Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with suggestion to add this as a simple listing to "List of Dog hybrids" as per above. All made-up crossed dog types really belong on this page unless they become recognized as a breed by recognized breed associations like AKC, CKC, or the BKC etc. or are an unrecognized naturally-occuring breed. Mercedes Cordoba (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of "recognizing breeds." All breeds are "made-up" by humans, as are such things as "numbers", "political parties", "countries", "species", or "corporations". There are examples of AfD debates about all of these topics, even countries (micronations), and some are deleted. The debate is decided on the basis of quality of the sources, not on some outside organization's notion of propriety. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point of that little digression was about since it doesn't seem to relate to what the poster said, however if it was that she called you on calling the "Pugapoo" a breed, she's right. Standards organizations are taxed with setting inclusion standards for everything from nails to foodstuff to wiring. In the case of dog breeds it is the various National and International Kennel Clubs that set breed standards. Whether we like it or not is moot. The fact that a cross is cute and trendy, and people are cashing in, doesn't make it a breed. JoKing (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion arguments are not supposed to based on what people like or not. You seem to have nominated the article because you dislike these crosses. I however don't care at all about the topic, and so I just examine the quality of the sources and build my argument from there. Abductive (reasoning) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Poodle#Poodle mixes which seems to be the best place per this Doglopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Poodle#Poodle mixes per above comment. Open The Windows, sir! 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poodle#Poodle mixes or List of dog hybrids. The few real sources (a couple of local papers and a few passing mentions in not-so-notable books) don't show distinct notability. First Light (talk) 04:33, 3 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri State University Ice Bears

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

Non-notable club sports team. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A review of sources shows almost nothing. There's a quote from someone who was their manager, and the team placed second at a non-notable sport association competition.CallMeIrresponsible (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — CallMeIrresponsible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club level team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any particularly legit sources. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had some club team articles pop up before, they never seem to be more well known ones, this one is. The team is well known in Springfield, Missouri State, etc... and the frequently sell-out the arena and drawl quite a bit of attention on and off campus. Here's some refs i found with a quick search. If the article is not kept we can always merge some info into Missouri State Bears.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to establish notability. I would like to point out the argument made in this article's first AfD nomination that he plays on an NCAA Division I basketball team and therefore is inherently notable for playing at the "highest level of amateur competition." That is a guideline that still leaves us (the editors and Wikipedia readers) to use common sense when determining if something/someone is notable, and this player is most decidedly not. He never led the nation in any statistical categories, he never played on a National Championship–winning team, and he is certainly nowhere near an NBA prospect. The creator (GoCuse44) is a Syracuse fan and this article screams WP:CRUFT. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be noted that the notability guidelines are being discussed and are likely to be changed. Additionally I agree that as a Division I player he might be notable, but looking carefully at his performance strongly suggests that he is not. Hundreds of people become Division I players, but many offer little to support inclusion in Wikipedia by comparison to current articles and to our general sense of notability. 15stamps (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 15 stamps has an excellent explanation that I agree with. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Williams looks like a pretty minor college player. He's only scored six points in his entire college career. [33] While I've voted to keep many articles on college basketball players, we need to draw the line somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 17:26, 1 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 keep. NW (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Snyder (animal trainer)

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. No deep coverage in secondary sources, only passing mentions. Simply falls short of significant. Gattosby (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cites several relevant historical mentions in the New York Times, which can be supplemented by this article which deals with him in depth and mentions here and here. Note that the images in the article are from the Library of Congress, which can be considered significant coverage in and of itself. In the event the article isn't kept it should be merged to Hattie (elephant) who has significantly more notability. Commenters please note that the author is User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), whose articles and images have been recently mass-targeted for deletion (admittedly often for good reason), so there is reason to suspect that in the context of mass nomination less care than normal has been taken in the selection of this article for AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 1 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. as A3 by User:UtherSRG Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil–Japan relations

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

~~Article contains no material information. Non-notable bilateral relations. Gattosby (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i see no material whatsoever besides see also. What's the point of having an article without any material . . Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has less than 30 edits. And with two sizable countries, each with significant foreign relations implications on a global scale, there's bound to be more to be added. CallMeIrresponsible (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — CallMeIrresponsible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Let's call this for what it is, a disambiguation page and an unnecessary one at that. That it has less than 30 edits after two years doesn't suggest that there's bound to be more to be added during this decade. Anyone clicking on this and expecting something is going to be doing the WTF dance. At first, I thought that someone had erased content, but it's never been more than this. If anyone wants to actually create an intelligent article about Brazil-Japan relations, I presume that they will also be intelligent enough to figure out what to call it, but I see no reason to have a placeholder. We don't have an article called Brazil–China relations or Brazil-Germany relations yet either, but I'm sure that when someone cares enough to write a good article they will do so. Mandsford 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A3. No content. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3. And have tagged the page as such. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:58, 1 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 The result was speedy procedural keep - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Farms

AfDs for this article:

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

~~No assertion of notability under WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dreyer_Farms_(2nd_nomination). Gattosby (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in article that makes the business notable. The only reference is a New York Times article and the company's own website. --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: Nominator is a jerk-ass sockpuppet who thinks wikipedia is the middle school playground.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite sock nomination (and Milowent I would highly suggest you just back off and be civil because provoking them and calling them names is not helping the situation), this reads like a non-notable article about a local business with limited regional notability at best. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The search term has so many results its hard to filter through them all at times. But the company does get coverage. [34] [35] Dream Focus 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proc Keep WP:ILLEGIT Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. --Savonneux (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. Which is something I never thought I'd say, but there you go. :-) Good work, DF. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 1 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun connect

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

Short, unotable, no refs, conflict of interest. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i cant find any sources, not notable. Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also obvious advertising: Sun Connect has continued to grow, opening offices in Victoria and NSW. Sun Connect is well known in the industry as a provider of quality components and as a company that is passionate about helping everyday people reduce their carbon footprint. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources therefore not notable. Dewritech (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointless. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:25, 3 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 keep. NW (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Durward Corley

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

Per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, trial judges are not inherently notable and this article demonstrates nothing the subject has accomplished to warrant notability outside of being a trial judge. See also WP:POLITICIAN. Gattosby (talk) 02:14, 1 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 The result was procedural keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyer Farms

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of purely local (small town) press coverage. No reliable sources. This article most likely will never be able to grow beyond its current state. Gattosby (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't get any coverage in gnews besides in nj.com [36]. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considering the nominator nominated every article this editor made prior to being blocked as a malicious sockpuppet, it should be given opportunity to be developed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proc Keep WP:ILLEGIT Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. {Otherwise I'd say delete for not meeting WP:CORP}--Savonneux (talk) 05:06, 1 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 Keep. Opened by abusive sock, no delete votes at this point.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Thompson Dodge

Article does not show what this woman accomplished that was "notable," pursuant to the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. Gattosby (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A bit of research suggests to me that Anna Thompson Dodge was a famous socialite for many many years, garnering frequent press coverage. Since notability is not temporary, I'd say this should be kept and expanded.--Milowent (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am also irritated to find that the nominator here is a blocked sockpuppet, a continuation of the childish tormenting of the article creator, who is a prolific contributor to the project. I'd propose the AfD should be procedurally closed as keep.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. WP:ANYBIO is subservient to WP:N, which requires merely significant coverage in reliable independent sources (such as those in the article). Commentors should note that this is one of a large number of articles created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) which have been nominated by User:Gattosby, and while this one should be evaluated (as all AfDs) on its own strengths and weaknesses, the others appear to have been nominated without sufficient care or regard to their merits and some have been speedily closed as a snow keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:07, 1 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levitt

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

Minor candidate for the office of California Lieutenant Governor with no significant press coverage; fails WP:POLITICIAN – Zntrip 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. He's one of six candidates running in a primary to be the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor of California. Even the major party nominee for Governor would not be inherently notable. Mandsford 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He is certainly not notable as a politician, and there is no appropriate article to redirect to. But I could be persuaded that the heavy newspaper coverage about his controversial building gives him notability. Probably not, under WP:ONEEVENT of mostly local interest. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:53, 4 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chautauqua Playhouse

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

Contested prod and prod2 by author. Article is about a non-notable organization. Fails WP:N due to lack of reliable sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as seconder of prod. No 3rd party sources found in a reasonable search. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 1 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming films

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

The title is pretty much self-explanatory. In contesting the prod the creator stated that this is a repository of films once included in 2011 and beyond in film. That's where it belongs. There are numerous precedents for deleting time-sensitive lists such as this one, in favor of static timeless lists like 2011 and beyond in film, which can be renamed at the end of 2011. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content of this article was once on the 2011 and beyond in film article. Across Wikipedia, there are various mentions of upcoming films, including sequels and remakes, without their own articles or mentions within a list of films article. A simple list noting some information as well as references would bring about organization of such mentions of films, rather than just keeping this information scattered across numerous articles on Wikipedia. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed a prod was added but I had a feeling this would be brought to AfD as soon as I saw its title hit new pages. I don't suppose there are any magic words or code (or magic word and code) combinations that we can use that will redirect anyone who searches for this article to the appropriate 2010 in film or 2011 and beyond in film articles depending on the year? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow this is sad. It is a good list, and would be very useful to lots of people. But WP is supposed to be about articles of lasting value and this list will change every week as the movies are released and removed from the list. You might as well have an article on "Next week's weather predictions for major cities." Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a news source. The list is unmaintainable (which may or may not be a valid deletion reason), has potentially infinite scope (which is a deletion criterion per WP:SALAT), and is simply not encyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Oh boy. — Timneu22 · talk 12:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncompletable and redundant to 2011 and beyond in film. Hairhorn (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTDIR--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any new sourced content back to 2011 and beyond in film, as even the nominator grants that that is where it belongs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopeless WP:CRYSTAL failure. Not opposed to merging per MQS. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back any relevant sourced material to the 2011 and beyond in film article and then Delete the futile remains. This was a bad decision for an article. :-( Mike Allen 08:00, 5 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Covenant

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

Film does not appear to be notable. I first checked imdb for a page but found none. Afterwards, I googled the title and found several youtube videos that appear to show a video game with non-notable actors providing voices to create a story. Looks to be put together by a group of fans. IndulgentReader (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N. While it seems to exist, a search of title plus writer/director find only SPS and blogs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:12, 2 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.Nand.R

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

I can't find significant coverage for this sculptor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article suggests the artist has even exhibited anywhere. Online, I've found a public sculpture [37] [38], exhibited as part of temporary exhibition in Terneuzen [39], and a fairly transparent art joke/publicity stunt [40]. Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:22, 3 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 Bloodlust and Perversion. Tim Song (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journey Through the Cold Moors of Svarttjern

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 31 May 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) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Bloodlust and Perversion. This was re-released on a compilation, the aforementioned one, and was also re-released on Avantgarde Music. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:52, 8 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 Bloodlust and Perversion. As the titles are so similar, I'm going to redirect this for two reasons- 1) it is a logical search term, 2) to allow a merge if any editor finds anything they believe should be in the target article. Courcelles (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust & Perversion

(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☯ 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:52, 31 May 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) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Bloodlust and Perversion This album was re-released on Avantgarde Music as a compilation. Deleting this article outright would not be the best thing to do, especially when you could just merge it. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:49, 8 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Insomnia-Para-Condroid

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

Non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:22, 25 May 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, 1 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green (Ray LaMontagne album)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing significant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While unreleased demos are usually treated as nn under WP:MUSIC, this compilation was released. Lamontagne is a clearly notable artist, and there's no good reason to punch holes in his discography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 26 May 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) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NALBUM notable artist and released album. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:26, 2 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live in NYC August 18, 2001

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

I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 25 May 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) 00:06, 1 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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews University Press

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations and companies as well as the general notability guideline TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about press that published quite a number of books already, an article like this can only grow. Also, although independent references might be hard to find about the publisher itself, we can find a number of sources on its products, as well as mentions of its employees. [41] [42] Mentioned towards end of article, (behind pay wall): [43] Republication of product in Christianity Today: [44] There are probably more, this is just from a quick search of Google News Archives. WikiManOne (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - University Press has over a thousand hits on Google Scholar. WikiManOne (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the publishing arm of Andrews University which has been in existence for more than 100 years. It publishes the PhD theses for the University and other works which number in the hundreds per year. This is just a Stub. Allenroyboy (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No independent secondary sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Despite the fact that I gave you a number of links in my vote above suggesting the opposite.WikiManOne (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Lionelt (talk) 20:26, 28 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Academic publisher not trying to sell anything. This is a stub-level treatment of significant topic worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiManOne. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiManOne, minus crystalball argument that "It can only grow." Seems notable at present. Edison (talk) 17:25, 1 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) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2002 Demo

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google doesn't show anything substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:22, 25 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUM and insufficient coverage to pass WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:27, 2 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) 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hopley

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

Unreferenced BLP. Weak claim of notability, but no significant coverage provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 18 May 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) 00:11, 25 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 11:02, 1 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 IGN per consensus and per WP:BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Harris (journalist)

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

No sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources" and little or no claim of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – some coverage found [45] and [46], though I note it's not terribly much. –MuZemike 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are perfect examples of what the GNG calls trivial mention. How are we supposed to write a reliable article if we have close to zero information on him? Not to mention that they are both blog posts. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IGN and merge whatever's verifiable - or simply delete. Marasmusine (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a smerge or redirect. –MuZemike 02:38, 30 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IGN. No real coverage, but he is as notable as average reviewers get. Some information is more or less useful, so WP:USEFUL aside, it can live in IGN with some possibly primary sourcing.— Hellknowz ▎talk 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IGN - To merge this one editor would end up requiring a paragraph on the staff at IGN. Not a big deal, but it just doesn't seem necessary. There's not much in the way of notability here, so aside from making the entire staff a section of the IGN article there's no need for a merge. --Teancum (talk) 14:26, 3 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Federation of International Students

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

Declining speedy A7, speedy contested. Elevating to AFD for a better discussion and judge of references. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage merely verifies it exists rather than indepth coverage of organisational history or influencing the educational sector. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per LibStar Codf1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Liberty

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

Dictionary definition. That's it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be expanded. Bburgersjr (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either John Stuart Mill or On Liberty, both of which address this concept in the context of Mill's writings, which appears to be the intent of this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth merging; no point in a redirect to something tangentially related. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 1 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there is possibly an article to be done on this topic, but this is a very weak stub, a rather unhelpful-but-wikified dictionary definition. I suspect that the info could easily be merged under "Liberty". If this is deleted, I hope that it is without prejudice against a future effort — somebody might be able to construct a good article on the topic and should have that opportunity. Do we delete bad stubs just because they are bad? Carrite (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect at best. (The page capitalization is wrong by the way). All of the redirects above suggest why the "redirect" to this is confusing, largely because there's no precise definition. The better approach is to redirect, if at all, to the most generic target. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say redirect but the title isnt WP MOS and there havent really bee any substantive additions except a one sentence dic def.--Savonneux (talk) 22:41, 1 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. Tim Song (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa M. Dietlin

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

Declining speedy. Certainly there's some notability here, but I'm not sure if there's enough to justify keeping. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there is no evidence of national notability. This is a consultant to a local CBS affiliate. I'd like to see more per WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 31 May 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, 1 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. Enough demand for a second chance. Non-admin closure. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jungil Hong

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

Declining speedy as notability is debatable. Elevating for a fuller discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Her work was noted by New York Times, Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Rhode Island State Council on the Arts (RISCA) etc. The coverage is not substantial, but it is in my opinion sufficient. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Vejvančický said above AND that fact that she's a primary artist of the Fort Thunder collective, along with Brian Chippendale (her boyfriend) & Brian Gibson of Lightning Bolt, Mat Brinkman, Jim Drain, Leif Goldberg, Jungil Hong, Xander Marro, & Pippi Zornoza.Endlessmug (talk) 00:59, 28 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty weak Keep per above - just scrapes through to notability. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Vejvančický and Johnbod.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs given above, but please use them in the article, or at least list them on the article talk page for future use. Ty 23:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, needs work...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 4 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) 03:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Value

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

Fails to meet the guidance of MUSICBIO. With no relevant matches in Google News there is little likelihood of reliable sources being added to address this in the near future. Fæ (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Nobody wants to discuss anyway... --TylerDurdenn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete appears to have a reasonable web presence, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:MUSIC. If sources are provided I will reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 13:27, 30 May 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, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dlabtot & Nuttah Codf1977 (talk) 11:04, 1 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) 02:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Tirone

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

Self-promotion page for non-notable author of a self-help book 7 Steps to a 720 Credit Score, which is also currently up for deletion. Cites appear to be from paid promotional services or are non-notable. DMahalko (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it smells like self-serving hype by somebody selling something, and it looks like self-serving hype by somebody selling something (True photo caption from the article, which has to be seen to be believed: "Philip Tirone kissing the hand of Mother Theresa"), it probably is self-serving hype by somebody selling something... Carrite (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I actually thought Carrite was joking, but there it is, right in the article, "Philip Tirone kissing the hand of Mother Theresa". Wow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be self-promotional article. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, and for lack of reliable sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 2 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.

[1] ttp://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i19web.pdf

[2] ttp://media.www.the-standard.org/media/storage/paper1059/news/2008/11/20/Sports/Silent.Leader.Paves.The.Way-3554426.shtml

[3] ttp://springfieldmo.org/ttd_listing_page.asp?ID=723&Company=Mediacom+Ice+Park

[4] ttp://www.the-standard.org/home/index.cfm?q=ice+hockey&event=displaySearchResults&buttonPushed=1&client=testing-testing&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23666666%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A37%3BLW%3A310%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en

[5] ttp://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/01/23/ice-rink-backers-set-sights-on-2008/

[6] ttp://alumni.missouristate.edu/46496.htm

[7] ttp://www.usahockey.com/mediacomicepark/

[8] ttp://www.springfieldmo.org/sportscommission/1208_SC.pdf

[9] ttp://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i21web.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.