Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:43, 3 March 2023

< 30 June	2 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Dynamics of Domain Networks

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

Not a single reference provided, likely WP:OR and easy-to-spot WP:ESSAY. — Timneu22 · talk 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay, homework posting ("we propose... ") 12:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Clearly original research. I was also struck by the opening "we propose..." This is basically an abstract or essay, not a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular monarchy

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

The article appears to be an attempt at original research, based on an editors discovery that some monarchs are named as ruling a named people rather than a named place. The article then fails to give a verifed reason for the difference,and even if they did knew it does not seem enough to warrant this whole page Utinomen (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any usages of the term in this way that aren't copied from this article. There are lot of generic hits that refer to the popularity of various monarchs and monarchies (ie whether people liked them), but nothing I can find concerning the distinction being made here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just needs improvement. It's actually a real term to refer the transfer from the Ancien Régime of France's absolute monarchy based on divine rights to a constitutional monarchy based on the people.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reliable source for that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you mean one other than Kingsley Martin, already cited in the article when you first read it, or other than the tens if not hundreds of French sources that quote Lafayette's words to Louis-Philippe, duc d'Orléans: "Non, ce qu'il faut aujourd'hui au peuple français, c'est un trône populaire entouré d'institutions républicaines, tout-à-fait républicaines."? Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, no, I meant an online source that we can read easily (I know online sources aren't mandatory, but if we could find one it would certainly help with this discussion). Also, "tens if not hundreds" of French sources aren't really much use if none of them is cited - and what we need is something covering the concept in some detail, not just quoting a sentence from one person (even if that person was a king). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially unsourced. The only citation is for the definition, and even that one isn't readily accessible. Short version, if one of your titles is "King of the Spanish people" rather than "King of the Spanish land", you're a popular ruler rather than a national ruler. The most important part of this-- i.e., that the Emperor of France was called "Emperor of the French People", or the King of Romania called "King of the Romanians"-- isn't sourced at all. Mandsford 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good grief! Pick up The Oxford illustrated history of the British monarchy and read chapter 6. It's entitled "Popular Monarchy". Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try to assume good faith here - people are just asking for information. If you can provide information, that's great - but people should not be berated for not already knowing it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay-- I haven't heard "oh good grief" in a long time. Besides, I think good faith applies to the nomination, since we're all as sincere as Linus's pumpkin patch when saying "keep" or "delete". I suspect that both Uncle G and I are fans of the works of Schulz, so if he were to say "Mandsford, you blockhead!" I wouldn't get mad. Mandsford 12:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If it's a real term applicable to Louis-Philippe does it apply to all those listed? If not then it is clearly original research, an attempt to apply the term to those that - for whatever other reason - are also styled after a named people--Utinomen (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, and as useful for college and high school students, our core readers. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article has potential but needs some work: better description, more explanation, and multiple reliable references. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep on the issue of "keep" vs "delete". No consensus on the issue of merging. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowly Worm

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

Are individual Richard Scarry characters really that notable? I cannot be sure but this article is badly laid out. It consists completely of original research(such as the statement saying he looks like a Pez dispenser), is slightly redundant as the Busytown article already gives better info on this character, lacks a talk page and much of it is unencyclopedic. The only more encyclopedic statement I see is the bit that says that the Tyrolean hat he wears being paid as a homage of one Richard Scarry wore and this has no citation. In history it appears that this article was created back in May 2009 and over a year has passed and there has not been any improvement on it at all. This article seems unnecessary to be independent of the series (since it does not even describe any of the characters role unlike in the Busytown article). trainfan01 14:46, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, they're probably important to note, but I don't see any of them being individually covered aside from their original context. This is a reasonable search term and should point somewhere appropriate, but I don't see Lowly or the other cast as needing their own articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to busytown He's notable to ME (i was a kid a long time ago), but i dont think he qualifies for his own article. busytown doesnt have a descrip, so put the descrip there. nice pic of him here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources and at least one extols the character: "Lowly Worm is the real star of the series". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yea, but "at least one" does not help it enough. trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

yeah but no but... I have added a second citation which headlines the Lowly Worm. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several more references to the article, including a Variety (magazine) ref to the effect that Lowly is the real star of the series, his widow's statement that Lowly was his favorite creation, and a recall of Taco Bell Lowly Worm finger puppets. Not that I know what the current consensus on stand-alone fictional character articles is. I'll admit I'm somewhat swayed in this direction by the sheer volume of Google hits on him - 657 before Google puts out a 'we have omitted some entries very similar to the 657 already displayed' warning. [1]. Stuffed animals, crafts, Ebay, whatnot. I fully realize those aren't reliable sources and that we still don't have an in-depth analysis of Lowly's meanings in an RS; I still think he deserves a stand-alone. Novickas (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator after renaming (to List of renamed Indian cities and states).Orlady (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of renamed Indian public places

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

Non-encylopedic cross-categorization. Public places are periodically renamed. This is not notable. Every public place in India has probably been renamed a dozen times in its history. This list could eventually have millions of public places. Information about the renaming of a particular notable place (if the renaming was a notable event) should be included in the article for that place. This listcruft is not necessary. SnottyWong ^converse 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do you see this as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? Tavix | Talk 20:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I can't figure out how this is organized, even historic names that we've relied upon for years, like Calcutta, have changed relatively recently. When lots of renaming takes place in a short time, it's usually part of a campaign, such as in the Soviet Union, Congo-Kinshasa, China, etc. Sure, it should be included in the article about the place as well, but we're not prohibited from mentioning something in more than one article. Mandsford 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Public places is too generic. As the nom points out it has a million potential candidates. If we include roads and schools then it will become unmaintainable. My suggestion is to limit this to City/state level. or split into different lists for admin divisions/roads/institutions--Sodabottle (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a good list. Should not be deleted but be developed and improved. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of renamed Indian cities and states", and remove everything concerning individual roads/building etc, because otherwise, it's a WP:NOTDIR violation. Claritas § 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The real question is whether or not the mere act of changing the name of a place is a notable enough event to warrant a list of all places that have undergone such an event. The only "List of renamed x" articles I have been able to find on WP are for cities which have been renamed, as Claritas has suggested above. SnottyWong ^squeal 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its nice list, give lots of info about old names, I really amazed to know about old names, we should keep and improve it. KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. The point is that this information has a place on Wikipedia, and that place is in the article for the particular place which was renamed. We're not losing this information. We're just debating whether or not it's necessary to have a list article which categorizes "public places" by whether or not they have been renamed. SnottyWong ^converse 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I Understood WP:ILIKEIT, let me rephrase my answer. We should keep it as this(renaming) events were quiet notable, My suggestion is to make this list state and city level , just rename the current list to List of renamed Indian cities and states suggested by User:Claritas and improve accordingly. KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept and renamed like List of renamed places in the United States. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we kept this article, renamed it List of renamed Indian cities and state, and removed all of the non-city/state information, how would you suggest reconciling this article with the existing Renaming of cities in India article? Surely we don't need both. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see now that the other article (Renaming of cities in India) is valid. Anyway, I am agreeable to resolving this problem by renaming List of renamed Indian public places to List of renamed Indian cities and states and deleting the entire "Renamed places in Indian cities" section. If there are no objections, I'll do that and withdraw my nomination. SnottyWong ^babble 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Needs some cleaning up and references, but otherwise, very much an encyclopedic article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strong original research violation. Sure, things change names but that's not a reason to have a directory on everything that's changed it's name in India. Tavix | Talk 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find a source such as, India, which contains details of the renaming of places in India after the Raj. All these name changes, will by their nature, be well-covered in government and geographical works. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing and deletion will not assist. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - I have moved the article to List of renamed Indian cities and states and cleaned it up by removing items that are not cities or states, per the above suggestions by multiple editors. This has cleaned up the article sufficiently to the point where deletion is no longer required. Nevermind, apparently someone is objecting. In its current state and at its current location, this article should be deleted. SnottyWong ^chat 22:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the removed content and moved to the more general title List of renamed Indian places so that we do not make unwarranted assumptions about which renamings are worthy of listing. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were no "unwarranted assumptions" made. The move I made was the opinion of multiple editors in this discussion. I even announced my intentions to ensure there were no objections. The move you made was unwarranted and against the consensus that was in the process of forming here. Now, after this AfD ends, we're going to have to start a page move request and debate the same points over again, because your move is not revertable. Your actions are quite disruptive, and some of the comments on your talk page imply that this is a common pattern in your behavior. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very informative and useful list. Tovojolo (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) as a page created by banned user Pickbothmanlol in violation of ban. His userfied page and incubator page have also been deleted. –MuZemike 04:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Order (AW)

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

Highly dubious article about a group for which notability is not established and sourced almost exclusively to blogs. Speedy declined on the basis of a single academic paper, but it uses the same blogs in its references - and anyway talks of King Punisher and his followers (referred to as his order) - "The Order" of the title seems to be a misnomer at best. I42 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the one hand, I'd like to see it incubated rather than deleted—the AfD process will at least give a week for future discovery. However, the lack of further sources means that while the current version of the article gets over the hurdle of asserting notability, it doesn't demonstrate it.—C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see it incubated as well. It might not be notable to your eyes, but anyone that used AW between 1995 and 1999 will beg to differ. It brought the concept of vandalizing user created content to AW and is no doubt an early example to a cyberterrorist group on the internet. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the facts that user is a sockpuppet based on previous edits, the user has violated 3RR multiple times, and this article is a recreation of previously deleted material through speedy deletion. Oh, and it's not notable. Other Activeworlds organizations (SW City, Alpha World) have also tried to gain notability on Wikipedia and have failed because they are exclusive to one community. Why should this article be treated any different? -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this SPI case is recommended to be closed due to the comments of the original blocking administrator, three book sources noting The Order exist. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another book source has been added. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pulling these supposed sources out of thin air. Maybe you should enlighten us as to how you seem to find all of these? -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books and citing the pages of which it is mentioned. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see assertions, and I see offline references, but there is nothing in the article as it currently stands that connects the two or convinces me that this is notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not notable and with the possible exception of the Internet Journal of Criminology article, the sources were not reliable ones. The links under further reading seems mostly unconnected to the article containing possibly mentions at most. I agree with GSK that this is likely a sock of a blocked user seeking further disruption. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it into the Incubator. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in South India

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

Unnecessary content fork of List of most populous cities in India. There is no need for a separate list for South India. SnottyWong ^yak 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree on this one being an unneeded fork. Although there seems to be at least one definition of what states would be considered "South India", we don't have articles about "List of most populous American cities in 'The South'", or in "Western Canada" or in "Eastern Australia". Mandsford 00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary and redundant. The India list is enough--Sodabottle (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike Western Canada or Eastern Australia, South India has unique features which distinguishes itself from rest of India. Infact, every Indian state is different from each other in culture, language, etc. Since India is a big populous country, the List of most populous cities in India cannot include many of the South Indian cities. So the list is not redundant, and it conveys a fair idea about the population of the South Indian cities. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 05:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the List of most populous cities in India cannot include many of the South Indian cities because of size restrictions, then why is it that every city in the South Indian list already appears in the full India list? The list is 100% redundant. SnottyWong ^chatter 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - India has a large population and both in terms of total population and population density, India is one of the densest populated country's. There are so many populated areas which cannot be included in the List of most populous cities in India. Also India's languages, religions, dance, music, architecture and customs differ from place to place within the country. Because of this difference India is always referred as South India, North India, Northeast India etc. There is a section in the article Western Canada about the Major population centres in western Canada. There is only a few city's so it can be added as a sub section in the article itself. Same in the case of Eastern states of Australia. But in the case of South India there is so many important populated city's. It cannot be add as a section in the article. My suggestion is to keep this list. BINOY ^Talk 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the List of most populous cities in India cannot include many of the South Indian cities because of size restrictions, then why is it that every city in the South Indian list already appears in the full India list? The list is 100% redundant. SnottyWong ^chatter 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom here. There are currently 200 cities in the india list. Does not make it too big or unnavigable. All the cities in the South Indian list are present in the Indian list too. So it is indeed redundant. The cultural/population diversity argument here would mean even more lists. For differences between say Southern Tamil Nadu and North Karnataka would be as as large as those between Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir. I would support a separate list if the original list becomes unsortable and unmanageable. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the list should be deleted as long as it is not redundant and carrying useful information? The arguments in favour of deletion is very weak. --Samaleks (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is redundant. Every city in the South India list appears in the regular India list. The only reason that we would need to split the list into two lists is if one list was too large for a single article, per WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT. There is no evidence that that is the case here (in fact, the only evidence is to the contrary). SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep this list by expanding the article. There is more important cities with significant populations. BINOY ^Talk 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this list already includes cities with only 150,000 population. I wouldn't consider a city "populous" if it has a population much smaller than that. In any case, if there are more notable populous cities, the List of most populous cities in India is not a long list at this point. There is plenty of room for more cities to be added to it, and no need for a second article to serve as a content fork. If the List of most populous cities in India article eventually gets unmanageably large, then that is the time to discuss splitting it into multiple lists. SnottyWong ^verbalize 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, All the data cannot be added to the article List of most populous cities in India. Because there is 1000 of city's with significant populations. (see here). How would less than 150,000 population cannot be considered as populous? See the List of cities in Australia by population which has city's with population less than 35,000. In List of cities in Canada, there is city's below the population 2,500. (I don't know why it has been considered as city). Also in List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population, there is populous places which has less than 25,000 inhabitants. Same in the case of List of cities and towns in Russia by population. In India a city of population 20,000 and more is considered as a municipality. Why there is no need for a separate list for South India? South India is considered as a region of India. See List of municipalities in British Columbia(it is also a featured article), which is a province of Canada. Most of the city's in the list is on the list of city's in Canada like here. But it helps to find information about a part of the country easly. BINOY ^Talk 07:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculating that this article might get longer in the future is not a reason to keep the article. The article right now is not long, and neither is the parent article. Right now, 100% of the information in this article appears in another article. That is called a content fork, and such articles are to be deleted. Once the main India article gets to be demonstrably too long per WP:SIZE, then this article can be recreated if need be. Currently, however, this article is useless. SnottyWong ^talk 14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now expanded and contains more information than the other article. Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. Here the List of most populous cities in India is the list of city's in the entire country and the List of most populous cities in South India is the list of cities in a region of the country, just like List of cities in Canada and List of municipalities in British Columbia. Most of the city's in List of municipalities in British Columbia is in List of cities in Canada. BINOY ^Talk 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I applaud your efforts to expand this article, I'm still not convinced. This article now has 100 cities, and the main India article has 192 (of which at least 53 are duplicated between articles). If you combined those two articles together, you'd get a list of 239 cities, at the most. A table with 239 entries does not constitute a spin-off article per WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF. Furthermore, if someone is interested in finding the most populous cities in southern India, the table at List of most populous cities in India is sortable, which means they can sort the list by "State/UT" and find whatever information they're looking for. This list is still an unnecessary content fork, and adds nothing to the project that doesn't already exist elsewhere. SnottyWong ^comment 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, your example with Canadian municipalities/cities is not relevant either. Municipalities and cities are not the same thing, therefore those two lists are lists of different entities. This list, however, is a list of the exact same entities that appear in another list. SnottyWong ^converse 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely redundant. If it is so important to differentiate the cities by region, just add another column to the List of most populous cities in India. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bangalore

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

Content fork of List of tallest buildings in India. There is no need to have this article when all of the notable tall buildings in Bangalore already appear in List of tallest buildings in India. Any buildings which don't appear in List of tallest buildings in India can be presumed non-notable. SnottyWong ^spout 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bangalore isn't noted for its skyscrapers. If Bangalore or any other Indian city has got many tall(er) buildings it can have a separate list. (Mumbai justifiably has its own). But we have to draw the line somewhere - the tallest in Bangalore has only 30 floors. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sodabottle, its not having tall building enough to have its own article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 12:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The tallest in Bangalore has only 30 floors. I think the buildings are non-notable. BINOY ^Talk 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with Kanpur

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

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. The inclusion criteria for this article is any person "associated" with Kanpur, with "associated" left undefined. This list could potentially include millions of people. This is listcruft. SnottyWong ^confer 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are such lists for many cities and towns. Perhaps it should be renamed just as List of people from Kanpur to per norm. And yes the list could potentially include millions of people if all of them are notable and have an article in wikipedia. User:Shyamsunder

Delete without prejudice to re-creation in future. The list isn't that long that it can't be accommodated in the Kanpur article. Should it grow sufficiently that it needs to be split off, then there should be no bar to doing so at that time. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per Mjroots. As it stands the list should include every person mentioned in Siege of Cawnpore and every other article that has anything to do with Cawnpore or Kanpur, which I would imagine was not the creator's intent (but perhaps it was, as the list currently includes people not from Kanpur). Many city articles have this list as part of the article; as Mjroots says, if the list becomes large enough then it can be hived off.YSSYguy (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Suns

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

Linkin Park have made no official statements on an album title. Article was created based on rampant speculation that "A Thousand Suns" (an answer to a puzzle the band had up on their official website) may be the album title. However; no confirmations have been made and thus this article was created based on fan belief and not fact. Furthermore, since it's inception the article has been vandalized heavily, and therefore it is recommended that this article be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPAssociationDerek (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the new album has received coverage, it doesn't appear that the album name has been announced. WP:TenPoundHammer's Law suggests that the litmus test for an album is whether the title or tracklist can be verified. Neither can at this point, so it makes sense to delete the article rather than move it to Linkin Park's 4th studio album. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per both comments above. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First and foremost, the article information should be changed before talk of deletion occurs.

Comment. Remember to change the stuff put on Linkin Park's wiki page. Make a page on the album when it's released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gonads3 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RichV 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is incorrect. Is it possible to remove it immediately? RichV 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just felt I'd add to this discussion that the newly added claim on the article that "this information can be verified on linkinpark.com" is not correct. Mike Shinoda, one of the primary members of the band has gone out of his way to say people should not assume "A Thousand Suns" is the album title, and the band has still made no official supporting claims that verify this article. LPAssociationDerek (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nonsense to assume such is the title of an upcoming album with absolutely no basis or verifiability, especially when such is refuted by the band through their own official statements as indicated in the comments above (see: TenPoundHammer and LPAssociationDerek). I suggest to speedily delete with all due haste and diligence.

Follow-up: This is just a further followup after looking deeper into the matter. All of the materials collected with regards to this article have been entirely speculatory and consisted of nothing but blatant original research. The title of "A Thousand Suns" as the title of the album has been nothing but an unverifiable rumor as of present. Indeed when you have an edit such as this: "Another puzzle reveals the text "THE CATALYST /// AUGUST 2" when a picture from the Linkin Park website is treated with saturation from a photo-editing application such as Adobe Photoshop. This suggests that the first single from the album will be called "The Catalyst" and the release date will be August 2nd." which is based on this, you start to get a general idea of where the material for these articles has originated: purely with speculation and assumption while absolutely none of it is from the band themselves. These messages could mean quite literally anything and it is on that notion why I agree with deletion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is BULLSHIT. We have been given two messages and a random date. This could mean ANYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.24.27 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the last guy. Anyway we could expedite the deletion process and speedily delete this article? In it's current state it is horribly misleading, as nothing has been officially confirmed nor announced by the band. The message campaign is still going on as we speak. LPAssociationDerek (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, this article can benefit from being deleted and rewritten anew (in time). Based on speculation, with absolutely no credible sources for what it claims, (album title is speculative, release date is speculative, etc. —CStebila (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Everything here is speculation, no cover, no singles or tracks, a whole lotta nada!! Ga Be 19 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Zaidi Napiah

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

Malaysian football is professional (barely: it's about to become semi-pro again). All that I have found about this guy is that he did play for Kelantan FA [2]. But it's one brief mention in a match preview. We can't verify know for how long he played and for who else he played. Therefore, while he technically passes WP:ATH, he fails WP:BIO so substantially that it is not possible to write a verified article anything longer than one vague sentence "...was a Malaysian footballer who played for Kelantan FA". The presumption of notability created by passing WP:ATH should therefore be rebutted. Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does pass WP:ATHLETE, as nominator states, and therefore is considered notable. Giant Snowman 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand he meets WP:ATH but these are guidelines. This is what the article would have to say to be strictly accurate on the one tiny source that we have:

"Mohd Zaidi Napiah is or was a footballer who played for Kelantan FA in Malaysia, and possibly played for other clubs."

That's why we need sources and common sense as well as guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after further consideration, as there are no sources to prove that the player in question has actually played in a fully-professional league - simply being on the roster is not enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 21:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also played for Perak. Eliteimp (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt: That ref only shows he was registered with Perak, not that he played for them.--ClubOranje^T 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing both notability guidelines and verifiability unless reliable sources can be found to confirm he actually played for a team that meets the requirements of WP:ATH. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Unless someone can find a source that actually states that he played for a professional team, rather than just being registered for them, possibly meeting WP:ATH is meaningless. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest runways in India

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

Unnecessary Content fork of List of longest runways. If someone needs to find out the longest runways in India, then can go to List of longest runways and sort the nifty sortable list by country. SnottyWong ^speak 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per Snottywong. List of longest runways pretty well makes this unnecessary. Mandsford 21:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of longest runways is sufficient. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork from List of longest runways. Tavix | Talk 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with runways list. Simply south (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is already in runway's list BINOY ^Talk 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlie Hodge Halftime Show

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

Local radio show of questionable notability. No article about host, no significant coverage listed from independent third-party sources, only primary sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local radio show. Written like a fansite. The author should create a fansite somewhere, but not on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations of notability, or of almost anything else being true for that matter. Even the unsourced parts make no claim beyond being a show on a local music station. Fail per WP:LOCAL. --Closeapple (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is still a mess. — Timneu22 · talk 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in American Art

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

This article has numerous issues that have not been addressed for two years: missing citations, written like an advert, needs cleanup/wikification, and contains only self-published sources. I'm not convinced that this article can be fixed through normal editing, or it will certainly take a significant rewrite to make it worthy of inclusion. With so few edits to it in three years, is anyone watching? Does anyone care? I don't, but my primary concern is that it is written like an advertisement and it does not cite any reliable, third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are 10,000 google news results to pick from. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there are zero in the article. — Timneu22 · talk 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a wiki is that anyone who feels that an article is inadequate can improve it. You are the one who seems to think that this article is inadequate, and another editor has helped you by pointing out where you can find the sources needed to improve it, so why don't you just get on with some constructive, collaborative, work rather than demand that others should do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not a subject matter expert here, and I don't care to use my time about this topic. — Timneu22 · talk 10:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a poor article (I just pruned the advert-like copy) but about a well-known book. Its been around since the 40s at least and as another editor notes; there are lots of sources. Needs improvement not deletion. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa's Birthday Tape

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

Non-notable self-released tape. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUMS, and I can't find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Keough Redmond

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

Non-notable BLP per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^talk 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as with all of these (save the obviously notable Kopechne) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_Room_Girls -- perhaps it could redirect to an article about them all. AS it stands there just isnt enough about them individually to claim notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect There is no significant coverage about her personally. Two RS references are provided, but one is an obituary for her husband, and the other is a Time article where she and others are simply listed as connected to the Mary Jo Kopechne case. The article about her should be deleted or redirected to Mary Jo Kopechne. IMO the articles about Esther Newberg, Susan Tannenbaum, and the Boiler Room Girls should all be deleted or redirected as well, since they have no notability of their own; they are peripherally connected to a sensational death. BTW the Boiler Room Girls article lists the age of each of the "girls", giving the age they were in 1969! Like the others it appears to be based on a single source. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Marshall

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

I am unable to separate the fact from the fiction in this, and notability gets lost in between. The whole damn thing pay be a hoax (see my one edit to the page to remove utter nonsense). There are several references on the page, maybe they are all nonsense too. This just seems to be a big horrendous joke. — Timneu22 · talk 17:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are inconsistencies in this article. Ref 1 says he grew up in Bedford, MA, but ref 4 (which supports the 600 projects claim) refers to a (presumably) different Allen Marshall who grew up in South Carolina and attended Clemson Uni. The last external reference, "We Are Marshall", has nothing to do with either man. The facetious tone, lack of obvious notability, and suspicion of advertising his new consultancy firm, all incline me to vote Delete.--Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the page to address these concerns. It appears the Clemson Marshall was the wrong Marshall, so this link was removed. I disagree there is any advertising here. The gentleman's current firm is not referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybobma (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references are unreliable sources such as linkedin, or they aren't indepent. I can find no sources indicating he is "a noted transportation and information technology consultant, fly fisherman, and home improvement expert". -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - either a hoax or an unimportant salaryman. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Inconsistencies and unreliable references. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Alexf^(talk) 12:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isolinux lucid puppy

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

Unremarkable game. No CSD for this. This is a beta-tested game, with no sources provided. — Timneu22 · talk 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting, also appears to be made up given the huge lack of ghits (Wikipedia only...). delete. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax. The only information on the official site is the text in this article and a "screenshot". The screenshot is merely copied from another piece of software called "3D Fantasy River Screensaver" [3]. A planet simulation with "almost molecular" detail is also completely implausible. Marasmusine (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Farber

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

Fails to meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN; he's nothing more than a candidate whose supporters are trying to use WP to advance his campaign. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I am completing the nomination for an IP. I have no opinion at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see [4], [5], only 2 GNews hits - fails WP:POLITICIAN. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the two sources above and the following ones: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of those are nice, but they are refs for a BLP1E (political campaign) and they mention him in passing. Hardly the detailed coverage required in multiple sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he wins then it can be recreated. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is referenced in all the articles below and will certainly receive more coverage as he begins campaigning in the months ahead. he is the Republican candidate for NY state senate in 2010, and this article provides information and links for the community seeking to learn about their voting options in the November election. Note: This comment was added by 96.224.100.220 but put in the wrong place; I have moved it to where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Non-notable. Failed political candidate, has never held office. References provided are not mainstream. A search of Google News finds many other people named Saul Farber (a physician, an artist, a coach) but nothing about him, at least in the first few dozen hits. Wikipedia is not the place for "the community seeking to learn about their options in the November election"; people looking for that kind of information should visit smartvoter.com. Wikepedia is an encyclopedia, and articles here have to deal with notable subjects. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Species List Forest

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

Not clear how this may account as a notable forest + obvious wp:COI - see the userpage of article's creator, User:Rstafursky (from the userpage : Richard H. Stafursky Pres., WSLF Conway- WSLF is the acronym of World Species List Forest). Connection between Stafursky and the subject can also be inferred from this external link. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources proffered, and I couldn't find any. The creator's discussion on his talk page bolsters the nom's assertion, while throwing in a soupcon of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:WEBHOST. Ravenswing 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just found this page. I have been following Discussion and Talk pages for World Species List Forest with an intent to stop it from being deleted.

I have found two good references in the real press. Both References exist. Both are not easy to retrieve electronically. The Recorder story was printed, but because it is a local and not a regional story it is not archived.

Here it is. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7RdUYOUOy14/TC9Z3Op68qI/AAAAAAAAAFg/yLGh1eajnRk/s1600/Species+List+Forest+re+The+Recorder.png

The other story was published in the prestigious Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly which requires a subscription to see the entire story.

Here it is. http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/index.cfm/archive/view/id/451162

Searching the Massachusetts Layers Weekly with just the number 451162 brings up just the first sentence of this important story : ___________ You searched for 451162. 1 items found. Article 1 of 1 found Opinion Digest - Published: October 05, 2009 Real property - View easement Case Name: World Species List - Natural Features Registry Institute v. Reading, et al. Court: Appeals Court Abstract: Where a Land Court judge ruled that the language contained in an easement created a view easement permitting the defendants to cut vegetation in order to maintain their view, we hold that the judge's interpretation was permissible and that his decision must be affirmed Lawyers Weekly. Opinion Digest: ... ___________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstafursky (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC) As you can see not every citation is free, easy to access, archived and non-cryptic. Maybe some day ...[reply]

Please don't delete World Species List Forest (Species List Forest)

Richard StafuskyRstafursky (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stafursky is the donor and the creator of the actual World Species List Forest. We are not talking about a blog or an avatar or a word derivation. We are talking about a real place explained by it's creator. As are all references on any subject, the two valid citations I list have writer's errors and must be corrected somehow. Local newspaper writers and legal writers did their best, but their best alters history. That is why I added this important Wikipedia. There are very, very few Americans who understand the natural landscape. They say he author is personally using the Wiki as his own personal blog? I have created this Wiki for users of Wiki, only. I have a blog, and have had it for some time now, on the side as my place to rant, if you will.

I have now provided two good references. Now, please give us a chance to clean up our format to Wiki standards, but don't ask us to make it look just like any other Massachusetts land trust ... which it certainly is not. I guarantee it will make you proud.

P.S. As a newcomer, your Wiki admin slang escapes me. You have me at a disadvantage.

Please don not delete the Species List forest, Conwy, MA USARstafursky (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, those two cites don't pass muster. I'm quite familiar with Lawyers Weekly, given that it's the local journal of my profession (as to that, my sister-in-law used to be an editor on it), and the "article" you're citing is one of the numerous case decisions posted every week. It fails in this case because it does not "address the subject directly in detail," as the GNG requires. The Greenfield Recorder article likewise fails because it's not about the Forest; it's about you. I would certainly accept it as a valid source supporting an article about you, but the Forest is not the article's subject. Ravenswing 04:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important and interesting to know how it was born. How did such a unique conservation area originate without a originator? You have, for some un-Wiki reason questioned whether the WSLF is an important conservation area? What?

Ravenswing, you are a Massachusetts attorney? I ask that you disqualify yourself from this review and let other, unbiased reviewers have a go at it. Now your sister-in-law was a part of this weekly? By the way it is the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and it is an important publication. I think you should remove yourself. You keep moving the goal post. And you are souring the milk. First you say there are no articles. Then you say you cannot find the archives, Now your sister-in-law? Now you fall back on your own judgment and an ad homonym argument on the creator of the 86-acre conservation in Conway, MA. The Recorder article is about the origin of this conservation area. The recorder, i'm sure, would not have asked to interview me if a neophyte conservation was not being born. And It already had a name and was named. In addition to its name the Recorder also mentions a dedication ceremony. It does not discuss whether or not the donor received accolades. It talks about plans for dedication of a unique 86[77]-acre forest. It talks about the nature of the forest ... that the forest is unique in the fact that it is (1) donated land (all of on person's inheritance), (2) being returned to the natural landscape and (3) it is open to the public for walking. No other conservation area can be described in this manor. Usually land trusts buy conservation restrictions and they refuse outright gifts of, what they consider to be, ordinary land. If the acres don't have spectacular vistas or incredible biodiversity they can't dump it and recycle their dollars. They also do not guarantee perpetuity meaning that specific acres that they acquire can, and usually are, either sold or exchanged, for "better" acres. There is always US dollars involved. Not the WSLF. It was created in what is know the correct way ... altruistically and the acres returned to the control of the natural landscape. The WSLF is now nearly totally under the control of natural forces and processes. How is that about me? How is the Recorder story about me or my beliefs? If I died today thye forest will remain and will be of interest to all.

Committee, can't you see that Ravenswing is souring the milk.Rstafursky (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete World Species List Forest.

Comment: I have not at any point addressed the merits of these woods as a conservation area; in any event, even were it a complete scam, that'd be irrelevant to this discussion, which can only focus on whether this article meets the standards of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you have any arguments to make solely based on such policies, we will be glad to hear you out. If you continue instead to engage in personal attacks - and I urge you, for the second time, to review WP:NPA - you will be souring your own milk. Ravenswing 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt this protected forest is a good thing for its immediate area, and it was praiseworthy for the donor to create it. However, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I can't find that the forest has any presence on Google News, or any presence on the web except its own self-referential sites. So it fails the requirement for WP:Notability. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is something terribly wrong here with Committee's logic24.62.93.233 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC). [Special:Contributions/24.62.93.233|24.62.93.233]] (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eevee (band)

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

I tried PROD, but Marcus leaned to A7, {{db-band}}. My BLPPROD was wrong because I guess that's for individual people. I'm not sure A7 applies because the article states they won a nationwide competition with a record deal with Sony. I'm fairly neutral on this topic, but I tend to weak delete, especially since there are ZERO sources provided. — Timneu22 · talk 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, pending expansion. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet WP:BAND based on the contest they won, teh record deal, the charted songs. Needs cleanup and work. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree now that there are refs. I hope someone will clean it up. — Timneu22 · talk 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's significant coverage in media in the Philippines listed in the article; the subject therefore meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Northwest Airlines Flight 255. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Cichan

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

Article was listed & deleted previously (here), on the basis of notability solely from one event. Very little extra or different now from the version that was deleted. Suggest the article be redeleted, made a redirect to the main article. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect as nominator. The final paragraph of the article as it stands gives the greatest claim to fame Cichan has other than the crash ~ being shielded from the public view, & a degree from the University of Alabama. Not enough to warrant a separate biography here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northwest Airlines Flight 255, or at least redirect the article there. Mandsford 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to Northwest Airlines Flight 255; or redirect. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Northwest Airlines Flight 255, since she is only notable for the crash. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Licks

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

This seems like a borderline A7, unnotable company. Indeed, the google search isn't promising. Can anyone corroborate the claims of the artist portfolio? If so, does that make it notable? I'm just looking for any third-party citations and refs. I can't find them and the article doesn't include any. There also seems to be a blatant WP:COI here, as the editor of the page included his email address in the edit summary... the email address of the person associated with the website. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'If you Google “Star Licks,” the first 50 pages reference this company – hence, how can this be considered an “unnotable company”? RustyWard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, you get results, but are they relevant? This is similar to some AFDs where a company is in the top 50 hits, but all those hits are just directories of companies. Are there any interviews or reviews or any significant coverage of the company? YouTube links and passing mentions don't count. If you can add any of those types of links to the article, it should probably stay. As it is, they don't exist so that's why we are here at AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a request for deletion by the author? — Timneu22 · talk 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the COI/advert issues are serious, but given the association with many notable musicians, even a single good ref would be enough to make this a keep for me. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Article has improved greatly due to added references. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (Police Chief of Dallas)

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

Aside from being a very small stub, this article seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT -- and it isn't even something he did; it's something his son did (so maybe a little WP:INHERITED as well). Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN, doesn't seem to be one of the automatically-likely-included ones, and I don't see sufficient actual (not implicit by position or related to event/relative) independent notability for this person himself. DMacks (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of GNews hits not related to son going back to 1995. Use "David Brown" Dallas police -Wikipedia.
GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All those hits mention him, but don't really talk about him. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the newly added refs -- they relate to his career and appointment. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the police chief of one of the nation's largest cities is de facto notable, and a good article could be written from numerous existing WP:RS, although the current over-emphasis on one event is concerning Vartanza (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor article but the man is a notable public servant by dint of serving as the police chief of one of the US's largest cities. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some bare bones material no re his son. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Several reasonable and experienced editors seem to reach different conclusions based on the same sourcing situation: this journal is clearly somewhere on the wonderful blurry line of notability. A merge to an appropriate target is possibly a good compromise, but there is an abundant lack of consensus to do anything in particular here. ~ mazca ^talk 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Injury and Violence Research

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

It don't seem (yet) a notable journal. Anyway a similar article (Journal of Injury and Violence Research), without the quotes in the title was already deleted, and it seems to me that the quotes was a way to hide the previous undeletion. I tried with Wp:PROD, but it was contested (without giving reasons). As alternative: move (without quotes) and delete the original page (link). Cate |_Talk 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename without quotes)—There appear to be enough independent sources to establish the baseline notability of this journal,[11][12][13] and at least some of the editors and reviewers are established academics in prestigious universities. That works for me.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links establish notability of the journal, simply that it exists and that papers are published in it. More relevant references are the Directory of open access journals, e-journals.org listing, and PKP Sample of Journals Using Open Journal Systems. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. New journal, v. 1 published in 2009. Indexed in only DOAJ and Google Scholar, which do not count for notability, and Safety Literature, a minor index. The references are utterly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename without quotes). See the (somewhat marginal) references above. Note: the previous article was deleted via PROD, so there was no discussion then. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- this is clearly a real, legitimate journal, currently just on the grey edge at the boundaries of notability. See also [14]. I think we should assume good faith here. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial sources. Not even close to being notable (see also WP:Notability (academic journals)). No doubt about good faith or that this is a legitimate journal, just a complete lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there had to be a specific policy somewhere. But doesn't listing in Safety Literature satisfy Criterion 1: "included in the major indexing services in its field"? Or would Safety Literature be a minor index, as suggested by DGG? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a policy, as it has not been accepted as such. Nevertheless it has been used a lot by members of the Journals Wikiproject. If DGG says that "Safety Literature" is a minor indexing service, that's good enough for me (after all, he has a lot of professional experience in this area). --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean: it's a notability essay, not a policy -- I hadn't noticed that. On general notability guidelines, though, I think this journal is just barely over the wire, so I'll retain my "keep" !vote, I think. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reason for that essay was that almost no academic journal becomes notable under GNG, because there rarely are references about an academic journal (most references will be to articles in a journal). With one exception, the "references" unearthed so far are just directory listings (in directories that list everything, without any selection). If that counts toward notability, then anyone listed in a phone book should be notable, too... The one exception is a note about a researcher having an article published in this journal. I surmise this hardly represents notability either. As DGG already stated, this is all very trivial and absolutely any journal will have this kind of "references". If people here want to argue that all academic journals are notable, that's fine with me, but definitely goes against the majority of people participating in the debate about whether or not WP:Notability (academic journals) should become an official guideline or not (see talk page there). --Crusio (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The listing in SafetyLit seems to me to be of rather more value than being listed in the phone book; there seems to be some degree of selectivity there. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. If you feel that a listing in a rather minor directory satisfies GNG, you should maintain your keep !vote. I think it definitely is too meager. --Crusio (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just created a stub on the publisher of the journal, the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, in case anyone thinks merging it there would be a good idea.--Pink Bull 03:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic game program

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

Delete, not a crystal ball. Non referenced. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is pretty confusing, but I couldn't find any third-party sources about the program. It also doesn't even appear that the games have even been made. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any significant, reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG --Teancum (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Geiger

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

Subject is not notable as per WP:BIO and WP:PEOPLE i.e. he has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and he is not notable for any other reasons. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edited the page to address these concerns. More Referances have been added. More links have also been added. This record should not be deleted. Geiger is on a UK tour of radio stations promoting his work for Cancer Research UK. http://twitpic.com/21g5mq. {—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuman495 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 July 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:AUTHOR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a book of inspiration stories coming out early 2011, and making TV documentary to been shown next year also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.120.192 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These claims, by an anonymous IP user, are not included in the article and have no independent citations to back them up. Until they do they do it is hard to see how they are relevant to this debate. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on WP:AUTHOR,WP:BIO and WP:PEOPLE the article fails all relevant criteria.
Based on a Google search, Chris Geiger is a long way away from achieving anything close to any one of these. He seems to have written very few articles, mostly for local newspapers. According to Amazon.co.uk, he not published any books and a search on Google produces very minimal hits. The charity work is not significant in terms of notability.
I have been unable to find any citations to support the claims about a TV programme. In addition, the article contains material that suggests its creator is Chris Geiger himself or knows him personally, which raises questions as to whether they should be writing this Wikipedia article.
All in all the case for notability is very thin; he has written a handful of non-notable articles, no more. Peteinterpol (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the references in the article and do not believe that any establish notability. The sources include the subject's blog and this article from thisisbristol.co.uk, which, while it is about Geiger, it is not a neutral, third-party reliable source. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts all check out, well written, all within the terms of Bio record. Big following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus495 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine and conforms to biography conditions. All references confirm details. Notability worthwhile. Recommend the AfD removed and page is kept.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Fags in a Fabulous Car

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

This was a planned film which has now been cancelled. Its I.M.D.B. page has been deleted. Salopian (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the Ghits I found pretty much say the film isn't available for viewing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a cancelled film might have a notability through the circumstances of its cancellation, or through coverage of its production, this a textbook case of one that fails all such criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: apparently cancelled with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Hangman

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

Speedy declined, PROD contested. I can't find sources that suggest this game is notable. Possible Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day issue. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. This search should say it all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. No assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12: Copyvio of http://pa-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=73354083505&topic=10556 CIreland (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Resistance to Change

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

Clearly fails WP:NOTHOWTO, and seems close to an advertisement for a "self-help" scheme. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protests regarding 2008 South Ossetia war

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

I think, this is nothing more than collection of news reports. The table only aggravates the situation. Fails WP:NOTNEWS Blacklake (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Blacklake (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Blacklake (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this article has been up for two years, it is stable, it is very well referenced, it is an integral part of 2008 South Ossetia war articles series, and it is typical, Wikipedia has many articles of this kind.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - fine, it's sourced. But it really is just a collection of news, and it's not even written in prose. I think it needs a complete rewrite, but as-is it doesn't work as an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic topic, but not as written. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting notability. This is acceptable for Wikinews, but not for Wikipedia. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content appears to be an integral part of the 2008 South Ossetia war, as attested by its sources. The article was probably spun off the main article because the main article was getting too big.--Pink Bull 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-nihilism

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

Covered by "Nihilist movement" Lenerd (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect it there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if you're going to redirect, merge anything useful first. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in Google books and scholar do not show that there is any body of literature about this topic, and the sources seem to use it differently. TFD (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the redirect which had been prematurely applied and has been reversed. The Nihilist movement article covers something quite specific in place and time - and very distinct from the content of this article, which should either stand or fall in is own right. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article combines some referenced literary historical examples then some unreferenced sentences on two minor political groups (the first of which seems to amount to a Facebook page and neither of which appears notable). The references do not really support the term being central to the work of these writers, so the article can be regarded as Original Research or an Essay albeit short. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't appear to be a standard term: I can't find it in any books on the history or theory of anarchism. Also, almost the entire article is WP:COPYVIO from the given sources (with no more than minor paraphrasing), which makes it look like the article has been created by Googling for the term and then copying every hit into the article, rather than an attempt to describe a known position. –Syncategoremata (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several sources that I could find here. It is not a completely unknown concept, and in fact, from the sources there and in Google, generally notable. Contrary to the discussion above, a poorly worded article is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it will be a keepable article. Anarchism and nihilism seem to go together like straight edge and veganism. In both cases, I'm not sure why. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two Google news results, someone describing someone as that. Perhaps just two things they called them, mixed together. Gay vegetarian, or vegan communist, would be the same. Just two different things, people can mix together. Any reason to believe it isn't just Nihilism and Anarchism, put together? There are 31 results for Google book search, and glancing over the summaries, it does seem like a real thing, or least gets legitimate coverage. Dream Focus 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of results on Wikipedia when I search for "Anarcho". [15] Webster dictionary seems to have a different meaning of that word, instead of just an abbreviation for anarchy.[16] We have Wikipedia articles for Anarcho-punk, Anarcho-communist, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-primitivism, Anarcho-syndicalism,Anarcho-pacifism, Anarcho-queer, Anarcho-feminist, and others. Dream Focus 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:GHITS are not reasons to keep an article. Reliable sources to establish the notability of this philosophical movement are not forthcoming. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits doesn't apply here, since how many times someone uses the term in the news or in notable books, is quite relevant. Dream Focus 12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this concept does not seem to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devorah Frost

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as Ohio Valley Wrestling is only a farm team of WWE. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and OVW was a farm league, not any more and the fact that she was not moved to FCW indicates she was one of the OVW workers who did not have a WWE developmental contract. fails General Notability. MPJ -DK 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Curtis23's Us al ions 03:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Ohio Valley Wrestling falls under WP:ATHLETE as by definition it is a. "fully professional level of a sport" being that it is a fully functioning wrestling territory who runs a regular pro schedule (multiple weekly house shows, 1 weekly nationally distributed TV taping and 1 nationally distributed DVD event a month.) It also falls under WP:ENTERTAINER as it's video library is owned by World Wrestling Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.99.10 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WWE owning a video library does not make every single wrestler that appears automatically notable, especially since she's never been signed by the WWE. It's been established time and again that just being a pro wrestler is not enough for notability - read Notability, it states when people are notable. MPJ -DK 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Just being a professional wrestler does not make someone noatable" is a very true statement. Being a former champion in a main stream territory does. WWE, ROH, FCW, OVW and TNA are all full functioning wrestling territories. OVW and FCW are not "farm leagues" as they have their own talent, their own show and both have television and their own following and neither were ever owned by WWE (OVW existed before they were a developmental territory and were a member of the NWA), in fact OVW had a farm league called Derby City Wrestling for "amateur level" pro wrestlers. Other notable WWE developmental territies were "Smokey Mountain Wrestling", USWA, and Extreme Championship Wrestling. It is the pro wrestling equivalent of a MMA fighter going from WEC to UFC and vice versa. One is more main stream than the other but both are pro MMA companies with a working relationship with one another. That would make any OVW champion former or current "Notable". People just don't become notable because they go to the WWE. In particular, Serena Deeb, Josie and ODB who all won that same title without a WWE developmental contract are more "notable" back then than they were when they left. To put it in simple terms, wrestling territory = professional, professional champion = notable. It's not rocket science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.99.10 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - a few things 1) OVW is not a mainstream territory, it was a farm league, now it's just another indy fed remembered by it's WWE affiliation. SMW, USAW & ECW were never developmental territories so I'm not sure where you were going with that misinformation. Oh and the comment of going from "WEC to UFC" would hold weight if she actually worked for the biggest wrestling promotion ever (WWE) but she never did. And well yes, yes they do become more notable by working for the WWE than OVW. "wrestling territory" = any indy fed out there = "just being a professional wrestler", which in itself is not notable. Cut to the chase, no arguing - if she is indeed Notable then you can easily provide Verifiability through references in Reliable sources. So let's stop arguing, if you can provide reliable sources that show her to be notable then good, that's the best argument winner you can get. MPJ -DK 19:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WWE contracted talent assigned under USWA= Flex Cabana aka the Rock, the Godfather, Ahmed Johnson, Vader, and Mankind but this isn't about wrestling history. You seem to be arguing your opinion of someone or something which isn't the point. The point that you need to make is "Does this person fall under wikipedia's terms as notable?" and OVW falls under the guidelines put forth under those terms. Until Ohio Valley Wrestling the company and it's lineage is proven as "not notable" via the terms of this website. Any former champion or person of note from that company past or present is as well just as any character on any TV show considered notable would be. This is a reference site. Not an opinion poll or popularity contest for wrestling fans to debate their favorite companies. IF OVW was not considered notable by wikipedia's terms, then the page should be deleted no questions asked. Since it is and she is listed on many of the wikipedia pages associated with the company, there should be no debate. --99.68.99.10 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said - prove that Devorah Frost is notable not OVW or whatever. Verifiability through Reliable Sources on her, not arguments that she "inherits" notability from OVW. MPJ -DK 22:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I only have to prove that she is notable via the terms that are in question. The reason the page was nominated for deletion is because Ohio Valley Wrestling was being considered a farm league for WWE. Being that it is a full time wrestling company (thus making it a "territory"). It is owned by Ohio Valley Wrestling LLC who also owned Derby City Wrestling and Vyper Fight league MMA promotion (Thus making it not "Independant")and had association with the National Wrestling Alliance, World Wrestling Entertainment and Layfield Energy (all three nationwide companies) and WWE never having exclusive rights to her, her name and her likeness that would say otherwise. So again, the subject is the validaty of whether OVW is professional or a minor league. If it is decided that OVW is a minor league or "farm league" for WWE, then she is not notable. Please stick with the subject. --99.68.99.10 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's where you're wrong - she has to have notability, she does not inherit notability from OVW. MPJ -DK 05:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Springfree trampoline

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

Promotional article on an uncommon variety of trampoline and its creator, with effectively no independent sourcing to establish notability or most of the facts presented in the article. It's not clear to me that this is even worth mentioning in the Trampoline article, let alone having an article of its own. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Minor coverage, an Australian Design Award, more coverage, including coverage about more awards, and stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those just repeat the claim that this design won a design award, which is true. However, one design award doesn't establish independent notability on its own. Is there any discussion of this apart from the design award? Are there any sources to establish that this should be treated separately from the Trampoline article? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is all about being covered in reliable sources. This has been noted in mulitple reliable sources. This is the primary criteria of the general notability guideline. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a lot of coverage, but there is some, as noted, and another example here This is a classic example of a term I would expect a person to encounter, not quite know what it is, and hope that Wikipedia can help. --SPhilbrick T 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources cited DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Henge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henge monument

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

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a henge monument as a different class of monument from a regular henge. The first pages of a google search reveal the use of monument to merely be a part of the title (like Stone monument) and not indicating anything different from henge alone. English Heritage's Monuments Protection Program list a henge and henge monument as the same thing (but tellingly separates Henge enclosures and Hengiform monuments), the Archaeology Data Service and Pastscape have no idea what I'm talking about when I search it (and several henge's claimed to be henge monuments in this article are instead listed (correctly) as henge enclosures). Nor can I find the term in any of my books (admittedly I haven't checked all of them there are quite a few). In short, this is the only place I'm seeing this description of a henge monument as a seperate class of monuments, and I'm pretty sure it isn't. I'd actually recommend salting this one, it appears to be a rather misinformed (and misinforming) article. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Henge - There is a definite mix of terms which is confusing to the general reader. The article is technically correct to be separated from Henge but is infact misled as per my note at the bottom. This has been caused by the use of monument (something rasied to commemorate) all over the place where it is not really applicable.

Comment - A henge is simply the bank and ditch [17] - these can be broken down into three groups.

1 Henge enclosure[18] The largest type of structure - massive earthworks ~~with no monuments or other features~~ (edited out), such as at Durrington Walls or MARDEN HENGE NMP and normally used for living inside of it.

2 Henge The medium size 20+m - all the rest and is almost always referred to as "a henge monument (as they normally have mounuments inside) and were not used for living inside of.

3 hengi-form[19] is a smaller version of a henge and can be with or without monuments. Technically Stonehenge is not a henge at all ?? - the statement is a little askew as Stonehenge has a ditch and bank and a few entrances.... It may be that the Archaeological community decides to eventually classify them as three separate things: Henge enclosure, Henge monument and hengiform enclosure. Some henges are referred to as "Henge Monuments" when in fact they are not truly monuments Henge enclosures and hengiform are often referred to as monuments. Monuments are raised to commemorate and so henge monuments really are the monuments found in henges such as wooden circles, stone circles or barrows.

Note - Technically the Henge article should be turned into a disambiguation page which would point to henge enclosure, henge (monument) and hengiform and the contents of henge monument would be that which is currently in the henge article. (signature deleted somehow? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some references with henge monument in the title: ^[1]^[2]^[3]. They are rather old, so perhaps terminology has changed since the 60s?

Comment - a monument isn't always something raised to commemorate something, in Britain it can mean any ancient or even just not new structure, e.g. Edinburgh Castle is a historic monument, so every Neolithic sites is a monument by (legal?) definition. I think everyone agrees that a henge is the bank and ditch earthwork; so since it is ancient it is correct to talk of a henge (nothing else besides the earthwork) as being a 'monument', but the issue is whether it is a 'henge monument'. Durrington Walls, which is given as the example of a henge enclosure above, actually does have 'monuments' (I think a better term would be 'ritual monuments') inside it - there are several timber circles. And not all henges have ritual monuments inside them, see e.g. Thornborough Henges (or at least nothing has been found yet).

I'm not sure Henge should be a disambiguation page. It seems to me that a henge is the overall identifier, but strictly also means a Neolithic earthwork with a ditch and external bank with central area of diameter > 20 m. A hengiform "is a smaller version of a henge" (as stated above, and I would read that as saying it is a type of henge?) with central diameter < 20 m. (N.B. Strictly the definition of one of these should include an =, thus <= or >=, as otherwise it excludes a feature with an exact diameter of 20 m). A henge enclosure it says is anything from 17 - 500 m internal diameter (why 17 m and not 20 m BTW?) associated with domestic use (and it may or might not have ritual monuments - which would be consistent with Durrington Walls being a henge enclosure). But the defining feature of a henge enclosure is that the bank is outside the ditch so it clearly was not built for defense, and is thus also a type of henge. Stonehenge is atypical with the bank inside the ditch, but it is a type of henge as it was also clearly not built for defense? If we were to go with this set of definitions do we say a 'henge monument' is a type of henge that has a 'true' henge which contains ritual monuments, or do we say that the term henge may also be used to refer to a henge which contains ritual monuments? What do the archaeologists say? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in fact what I'm suggesting is I think much the same as Chaosdruid, in that I think henge enclosure, henge monument and hengiform monument should all be merged into henge (but as a proper article, not a disambiguation page). But before I go posting that - what do others think?

And I also found some more articles with 'henge monument' in the title (latest 1987): ^[4]^[5] Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use one source for the defs - I decided on English heritage but they are pretty fluid in their terms. Tey do say that a henge is a "flat area over 20m in diameter" and "A henge-enclosure...usually over 300m across"

From that a hengi-form would be <=20m, henge >20m and <=300m and henge-enclosure >300m

As for the rest, well each archaologist works from several ref books and old professors and they do not always agree on sizes etc lol. One of my m8s is an archaologist specialising in Neolithic and pinning him down to any term is near impossible...

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't see my mistake in Henge-enclosure : I've stricken it out (? that sounds wrong) - I was trying to say as per the last line of the EH doc about not confusing it with a monumental henge which could be a henge but over 300m with stones and circles in it...

And that is basically where the definitions introduce the idea of a "henge-monument" "Specifically excluded from this definition of henge-enclosures are large standard henge monuments. Such sites contain a rather different range of components and lack the abundant evidence for occupation in the interior which is found on henge- enclosures." That gives us the 4 types -

1 Hengiform-monument <=20m

2 Henge >20m <=300m

3 Henge-monument >20 m and undetermined top size

4 Henge-enclosure >300m

You can see that henge is rarely used as we are not finding any 2 henges. Its mostly the other three 1, 3 &4

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all these "Henge ..." articles into one proper article "Henge". Here is a dictionary definition of "henge":^[6] "a Neolithic monument of the British Isles, consisting of a circular area enclosed by a bank and ditch and often containing additional features including one or more circles of upright stone or wood pillars: probably used for ritual purposes or for marking astronomical events, as solstices and equinoxes." All henges are monuments, and the combination "henge monument" is somewhat pleonastic, like "cleaver knife" or "grappa brandy". The present article is like having an article "Cathedral church" explaining how it is different from a "cathedral door", with a disambiguation page for "Cathedral". --Lambiam 20:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lambian, agreed - I think the consensus is there should only be one article called henge, but we needed to figure out (not easy as its difficult to track definitive sources down) what the different sub-types are. I think as per Chaosdruid above we've about sorted those out now, except Chaosdruid hasn't found many refs to a plain and simple henge. There is an example in Thornborough Henges, and possibly they are not mentioned as much because they seem a bit boring compared to henge-monuments, henge-enclosures, etc.? But I think 'henge' is a distinct sub-type of henge. I agree the name 'henge monument' is a bit of a cludge, but that seems to be what archaeologists call them. I don't think we need to give upper limits, as that seems to be set by whatever is the largest? So basically amending Chaosdruid as per above we get (flat area diameter):

1 Hengiform-monument (<=20m) regardless of type of structures inside.

2 Henge (>20m) with few if any other structures inside the henge.

3 Henge-monument (>20 m) and including ritual structures inside the henge.

4 Henge-enclosure (typically >300m) and including abundant evidence of occupation inside the henge.

And I think we leave it up to the archaeologists to name a type of henge with evidence of occupation and a diameter 20m < x <= 300m!

Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that the terms henge (your number 2) and henge monument (number 3) are just synonyms. A henge is a particular kind of Neolithic monument, also called "henge monument". As the cited source states: "Henges can sometimes be confused with other kinds of circular monuments" – in other words, henges are circular monuments, although not all circular monuments are henges. There is no lack of theories, but the truth of the matter is that the purpose and function of henges and similar structures is not known. In particular, we do not know with any degree of certainty whether henges, or particular structures in henges, served a ritual purpose. The available sources appear not to make a definitional distinction based on the presence or absence of ritual structures, and so we should not introduce one.

I further think we should avoid getting hung up on the particulars of the definition given by English Heritage; note that they write: "defined for the purposes of the Monuments Protection Programme". Working archaeologists may use different definitions; in particular, I suspect that the "20m" diameter limit is in essence an observation: there are different types of monuments, which in spite of their similarity very likely served different purposes, and which also differ in that one type is considerably smaller than the other type, just like Siamese and other domestic cats have a length that is less than 1m, while tigers and other big cats are longer than 1m: the observed length difference is useful in classifying and a good thing to know, but it is not part of the zoological definitions distinguishing domesticated cats from big cats. --Lambiam 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem there is that you are confusing henge and circular monument. A stone circle does not have to be within a henge. Secondly a henge-enclosure is not a monumental act, ie raising something as a monument, but more a monument in the sense of "a thing from history".

The BBC website also uses the term "official definition"[20] but fails to provide where this official definition comes from.

I have rung English heritage and have been given a contact number for the archaeological centre and the head of research. I propose to ask them the question of whether archaeologists use the EH definitions, whether the EH definitions are in tandem with archaeologists definitions (by being from another third source) or if archaeologists use different definitions and if so where to find the correct reference texts whcih include those.

I would point you to the EH document Guidance on the Use of Monument Class Descriptions which is from the main page of their MONUMENT CLASS DESCRIPTIONS page. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambian here - henge monument is just a synonym for a henge. Within archaeology, some henges are described as henge enclosures (or occasionally as super-henges), while other, smaller ones are known as hengiform (or occasionally as mini-henges). I think the 3 forms are probably distinctive enough to have their own articles, but realistically I think it would be easier to merge everything into a single henge article, distinguishing the different types. My main issue though is that there is no separate class of monument called "henge monuments" that have any different features to a regular henge. I haven't seen any information that says otherwise yet - Chaosdruid, I really think the quote you use is just separating henge enclosure from a standard henge. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can say something about the use of henges Lambian even if we don't know how they were used. Firstly they are obviously not defensive, unless to keep something in rather than out, secondly henges (and henge monuments) have little indication of domestic use, unlike henge enclosures. That really only leaves ritual use, which admittedly can be a catch all to cover all the things we can't think of. Everything Neolithic is a monument in one sense: barrows, stone circles, henges, and henge monuments. One way of sorting out henge and henge monument is to ask the questions: "is Avebury a henge?" or "does Avebury contain a henge?" I think the answer to that is that it contains a henge. Then ask "is Avebury a henge monument?" The answer to that I think determines what we do. I'd point out that Arbor Low is called a henge monument in the literature (see refs). My reading of the defn. Chaosdruid cites is that there is more going on in a henge monument than in a henge: "large standard henge monuments. Such sites contain a rather different range of components" Aarghdvaark (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the different range of components are the ones listed in the definition for henge on that site. In my reading of that sentence, they are talking about standard henges, not a separate class of monument (from henge or henge enclosure) - after all, they don't list henge monument separately.

We can of course talk about what henges might be for in the article - there are more than enough theories published in reliable sources, but that is for the talk page of that article when we sort this out.

Avebury is perhaps not the best example to use, as the name is popularly used merely for the main monument, but here goes. Avebury is a village and parish in northern Wiltshire. Within that parish, and beyond it, is a WHS covering an array of monuments. One such monument is an avenue, another is Britain's largest man made mound. There is also a large henge (not a henge enclosure apparently, I should add), within which are the remains of several stone circles. It is a fairly typical - if very large - henge. It is a monument, it is also a scheduled ancient monument. You might call it a henge monument, but the second word of that description is superfluous. There is some confusion about Avebury - some sources call it a henge enclosure, but by the MPP definition, it is excluded from that description and is instead just a large henge because it lacks any signs of habitation and instead has "a rather different range of components". Ranger Steve (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarghdvaark: In Wikipedia we can only report what we find in reliable sources. If reliable sources say that henges were used for fancy fairs, then that is what we report; our own original research does not matter. As far as I can see, the consensus in scholarly sources is: We are not really sure – perhaps this, perhaps that, perhaps both, perhaps something else. The only way of sorting out a distinction between henge and henge monument is to cite reliable sources that describe these concepts as being distinct; what we personally think may be a distinction is irrelevant. I do not see any sources that describe them as distinct. On the contrary, it is rather clear in many sources that they are just synonyms, used interchangeably.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] --Lambiam 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you've shown enough sources to show that henge and henge monument are often synonyms :) I wasn't doing original research though - I was trying to make sense of the definitions. So, with approximate diameter of the internal flat area in brackets,

1. Henge (>20m). The word henge refers to a particular type of earthwork of the Neolithic period, typically consisting of a roughly circular or oval-shaped bank with an internal ditch surrounding a central flat area of more than 20 m diameter. There is typically little if any evidence of occupation in a henge, although they may contain ritual structures such as stone circles etc., and the design is clearly not meant to be defensive. Henge monument is sometimes used as a synonym for henge. Examples of henges are Avebury, which contains the largest stone circle in Britain, the Great Circle at Stanton Drew stone circles, which contains the second largest stone circle in Britain, and the Ring of Brodgar which contains the third largest stone circle in Britain. Example of henges without other significant internal monuments are the three henges of Thornborough Henges. Stonehenge, although having given its name to the word henge, is atypical in that the main ditch is outside the earthwork bank.

2. Hengiform-monument (<=20m). Similar to a henge but the central flat area is <=20 m in diameter. Mini-henge is sometimes used as a synonym for a hengiform-monument. An example is the Neolithic site at Dorchester on Thames.

3. Henge-enclosure (typically >300m) is similar to a henge in that the ditch is inside the bank, but they are large sites with the central flat area having abundant evidence of occupation and being typically more than 300 m in diameter. Some true henges are as large as this (e.g. Avebury), but lack evidence of domestic occupation. Super-henge is sometimes used as a synonym for a henge-enclosure. Examples of henge enclosures are Durrington Walls and Mount Pleasant Henge.

But how do we distinguish between a henge like those at Thornborough Henges and Arbor Low. Or does the definition of a henge include any number (including none) of ritual structures? Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Low is just like Avebury - a henge with a stone circle within it. The Thornborough Henges is a slight misnomer - it is the popular name given to a large complex of various monuments, which would probably be more accurately described as Thornborough, North Yorkshire: Neolithic and Bronze-Age monument complex (less catchy though). This is a fairly typical problem, like "Stonehenge World Heritage Site", which leads to the supposition that Stonehenge is the WHS, when in fact it is only one of a thousand monuments in the WHS boundary. Its important to remember that in its simplest form, a henge is a single earthworks. Most other things are "additions" to the henge. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so have we reached consensus? I've edited and re-arranged the definitions 1 - 3 above. Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Radley, J. (1968). The origin of Arbor Low henge monument. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 88, 100-103
^ Alcock, L. (1950). "The Henge Monument of The Bull Ring, Dove Holes, Derbyshire". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 81–86
^ Wainwright, G.J. (1969). "A review of henge monuments in the light of recent research". Proc Prehist Soc, Vol 35 (New Series), pp 112-133. p 129.
^ Text/Publication/Monograph: Harding and Lee, A F and G E. 1987. Henge monuments and related sites of Great Britain: air photographic evidence and catalogue. Brit Ser. 175. 372, No. 271
^ Text/Publication/Article: Woodham, A A. 1955. 'Four henge monuments in Easter Ross', Proc Soc Antiq Scot Vol. 87 1952-3, p.72-9. Proc Soc Antiq Scot. 72-9. 72; pl. IV, 1
^ "Henge". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.
^ "What is a 'Henge' monument". Orkneyjar.
^ A. Saville (1983). "Excavations at Condicote Henge Monument, Gloucestershire, 1977" (PDF). Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 101: 21–47.
^ Colin Richards (October 1996). "Monuments as Landscape: Creating the Centre of the World in Late Neolithic Orkney". World Archaeology. 28 (2): 190–208. JSTOR 125070.
^ Ian Shaw and Robert Jameson, ed. (2002). A dictionary of archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-23583-3.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ding-A-Dong. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ding-A-Dong (beFour song)

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

This is an article for song, however, this is just a cover version of the song, and not a different song, therefore it does not warrant it's own article. The same information is already avaliable on the page of the original article (Ding-A-Dong. P e ter will 17:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ding-A-Dong - covers are not given their own article, regardless of notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Williams (aikido)

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 19th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no independent sources that show he meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Aikido Yuishinkai International. Joe Chill (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Astudent0. I see no reason to merge this into a newly created article that has no independent sources and is also tagged with notability concerns. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is big in Australia and internationally. I added the references but agree they are not independant, I'll dig for some more. FWIW found some verification for Aikido Yuishinkai entry on the Aikido Journal run by well known aikido historian Stanley Pranin --Duckorama (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's big in Australia and internationally, it should be easy to find independent sources. The fact that none have been found makes him look non-notable to me. Astudent0 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the article's references are about him and several don't even mention him. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Proper title existed. — Timneu22 · talk 11:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kavalkaran 2010

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

Looks like no CSD applies, even though this is borderline "patent nonsense". I don't see any indication that "Ilayathalapathy Vijay" is important, much less his 50+ movies. This just doesn't seem like a notable entry, and no claims are made in the article stating why it is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close and redirect I highly recommend a quick close to this AFD as unneccessary, followed by a Redirect to the article Kaavalkaaran. While the author no doubt meant well, his mis-named article already exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing; marking the page with A10, duplicate — Timneu22 · talk 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources provided are tangential. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of HeartMath

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

Contested prod. Non-notable fringe organisation. No reliable sources. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the references have been changed in response to this AfD but I see no reason to remove the nomination. There are currently 12 references: #1 and #6 are written by the Institute; #2 and #3 are merely records of grant applications; #4 appears to be self-published; #5 is a "brief report" in a reputable journal dating from 15 years ago and is probably not peer reviewed; #7 and #8 are articles in a fringe journal; #9 is self-published; #10 appears to be an article in a fringe magazine; #11 is a press release; #12 is a brief mention on a populist TV programme. andy (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being specific. Let me give you a brief explanation of the references.

Reference #1 is a brief explanation of the Institute of HeartMath (IHM) by the founder of IHM. It's not even a debate that IHM is a nonprofit research and education organization.

#6 is a quote from that same book where the president of the Omega Institute talks about IHM research.

Not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#2&3 are records to prove that IHM is federally funded and approved by the U.S. Congress to carry on their research. Why is this an issue? Should I just remove the references all together and let the statement stand?

A grant application does not prove notability, which is the issue here andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#4 The U.S. Department of Education funded IHM to carry on the TestEdge National Demonstration Study, therefore references should be from IHM.

#5 is peer-reviewed - no doubt. http://www.ajconline.org/

No, full articles are fully peer reviewed but, in common with most journals, brief reports, case studies etc are not. See here. #5 relates to a brief report and has therefore not been fully reviewed. andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#7 and #8 are also internationally peer-reviewed and the Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine is not a fringe journal.

#9 is a reference that Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project lists the Global Coherence Initiative as a collaborator. What is the problem here?

It's not "Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project". See here - "the GCP... is not a project of Princeton University." This is not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#10 I might have to use another source, yet the reference is still correct. Princeton Universities Global Consciousness Project team supports GCI's hypothesis.

It's not "Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project". andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#11 is certainly a press release from the International Consumer Electronic Show announcing the winner of the online Last Gadget Standing award. This is a huge recognition, and a press release from CES is prefect for such an announcement.

#12 is a synopsis of behavioral psychologist, Deborah Rozman, Ph.D., explaining how to use the emWave on national television.

Not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Content586 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not clear what the article is about, but if it's about the institute, there are no independent reliable sources supporting notability; if it's about the theory, it's WP:FRINGE not backed up by reliable sources either, as noted by andy. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I see what needs to be done. I will write this again with independent sources and studies only. Content586 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Content586. I'm curious as to how you are so well-informed about the IHM—what is your position with the Institute? Duoduoduo (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google Scholar lists plenty of unaffiliated and respectable academic references to the institute, so RS notability is achievable. Deletion is not cleanup. K2709 (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, unlike the original author, you are able to find reliable sources please add them as references to the article! andy (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to scour articles, but at random I've dug up proof of Wall-Street Journal and police interest to be getting on with. Plenty of people are writing about the place, so it has notability for that alone, and it very verifiably exists. What they actually do there or if it's peer reviewed or fringe or not is just the subject of a critique section, it shouldn't affect the existence of the article.

http://www.macquarieinstitute.com.au/pdfs/Are_You_Stressed_Out_Yet.pdf and http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Shift%20Work,%20%20Stress,%20%20Wellness/The%20Maintenance%20of%20Police%20Officer%20Health%20through%20a%20Mandatory%20Wellness%20Program.pdf K2709 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these appears to be a legit Wall Street Journal article that mentions HeartMath on pp. 3-4 of 4 pages. The second of these is a 30-page report by someone in a sheriff department, that mentions HeartMath on page 13 and again on pp. 23-24. Both seem legitimate. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but a passing mention is not adequate for proving notability.The IHM has to be the subject of the articles.. andy (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more references from a quick google-scholar search:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-HFM-181/MP-HFM-181-14.doc

This one is a report to NATO by someone in the French military. The abstract says "The Institute of HeartMath® has also developed techniques for enhancing heart/brain synchronization (Heart Coherence; Cardiac Coherence (CC)), leading to a state of autonomic nervous system balance function that is correlated with improved cognitive function and health-related outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefits of the use of these two practical tools for military pilots on conducting operational activities." So this article is specifically about HeartMath's technique (as well as someone else's technique). But as Radagast3 points out below, a source being about the Institute's theories is not the same thing as it being about the Institute itself, which is what the proposed Wikipedia article is about. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/4834/4660

This is a paper by some Malaysian academics. The paper cites in passing three in-house papers from HeartMath. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147451

This article can only be accessed by registered members of the website—no good, I think. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.getrealandheel.com/pdf/finding%20a%20new%20normal%20-%20groff%20et%20al,%202009.pdf Content586 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly plenty of independent sources and no doubt about that. I just need to take more time to gather them all. Your contributions are much appreciated. Is it okay to directly reference the institute's Website, since this is an article about the institute? I've seen this done with other published Wikipedia articles, that's why I ask. Content586 (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content586, I'd still like to know what affiliation, if any, you have with the Institute of HeartMath. Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be confusion as to whether the article is about the Institute or about the Institute's theories. Some of the sources given above relate to the one, some to the other. In either case, notability would require independent and reliable sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for two reasons. (1) There appear to be no sources about the Institute itself; rather they are about the Institute's technique(s). (2) Despite two requests, the author of the article has failed to say whether he/she has an affiliation with the Institute; so I conclude that he/she probably does. Therefore there is a conflict of interest.

I think an acceptable article could be written, by someone not affiliated with the Institute, about a key technique espoused by the Institute. The title of the article would be the name of the technique. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought too. I have heard of HeartMath, although I have never checked it out. I am sure readers will be much more interested in that than in the details on the institute. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fringe organization; I doubt an article on the technique will hold up as notable, but no reason not to give it a try. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trying to understand why you think this organization is a non notable fringe organization. I have been following with interest their work for the last 6 years. I first learned about the organization from a Dr. at Wake Forest University. I was interested in heart rate variability (HRV) and he gave me a copy of an article on their work published in the American Journal of Cardiology. The article was not about the Institute of HeartMath, but about a research study they carried out on HRV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williammichaels (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the point made earlier: no evidence that this institution is notable, despite the possible (and non-inheritable) notability of some work by people who are now associated with it. andy (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I am still a bit confused about what qualifies as notable. I decided to call the organization and see if i could learn more about them. I spoke with a Bryan Kaybaker who was quite forth coming. I specifically asked him about their research studies and were they peer reviewed. He talked me through the research section of their web site, and I did find that they had several peer reviewed studies ranging from Emotional Stress, Positive Emotions and Psycholphysiological Coherence to Impact of Workplace Stress Reduction...Blood Pressure. He also told me (unverified) that their was an control study on ADHD being published in the peer reviewed Journal of Alternative Therapies. He said it would be available in mid July. I did look on the Journals web site, but they did not have the July issue up yet. I will check back with the Journal in a week to see if in fact what the gentleman said was true. My point in all of this is that their research seems very notable and that wiki users have the right to know about it. Let them decided for themselves. I see no reason to delete their article. However that being said, the part about the Technology and Consumer electronics show and Dr.s TV show seems inappropriate and i recommend that it be removed.Williammichaels (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — Williammichaels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12.54.126.130 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.126.130 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I apologize for taking so long to re-enter the discussion. I wasn't trying to hide my identity. I virtually volunteer for the organization, and I wasn't trying to cause a conflict of interest. I learned about IHM about a year ago and I've never even visited their organization, but I certainly am a huge advocate for how much they help people. I won't deny that. I was also wondering why they didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I took it unto myself to do it. Content586 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — Content586 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment.I did find a few videos on You Tube that may be notable.

One was from NBC World News, which was mainly focused on the Institute of Heartmath and their research, the other was ABC Today Show with Mat Lauer, that was on was about the heart and emotions and talked about the research of the Institute of Heartmath and did a short interview with their Rollin McCraty(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT5kHw3D7Fk&feature=related). I was also as able to confirm what the Institute representative told me about a new peer reviewed article about Heartmath interventions being used with children diagnosed with ADHD. While the July-August issue of Alternative Therapies was not yet available, they have a link on their site to the peer reviewed Randomized Controlled Trial article title- Coherence Training in Children With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Cognitive Functions and Behavioral Changes: http://www.alternative-therapies.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Content.Main/id/73/scribd . In light of of this, does anyone feel the organization is non-notable?

I still think the the part of the entry about Technology and emwave/consumer electronics is too much like an advertisement, and that wiki readers would be more interested in knowing about the scope of their peer reviewed research. Perhaps listing the various studies along with verifiable citations would be a much better use of article. Williammichaels (talk

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miihkali Antreinpoika Golitsin

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

Hoax article or, probably, machine translation from Finnish(?). DonaldDuck (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. this is not a hoax but a person who held high offices, and whose short prosopography is published in the tome of Ikonnikov, at least. To find internet references to him, suffers from the variations of translitteration of his name. But not only those who have internet presence in western alphabet, are notable - also those whose biographies are published in old books, can be notable and this person is. Marrtel (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue was discussed at Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone_(sekalaista)#Huomiota_kaipaavia_artikkeleita. The result was delete. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see that Vejvancicky does not understand the discussion in finnish. that discussion was not a deletion vote, but a discussion about possible future articles to be created. 'Kahvihuone' is an equivalent of somne Village Pump here, and not a page where deletions can de decided. Marrtel (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Marrtel. What was the result of the discussion? The deletion of this article from Finnish Wiki refers to the debate. Sorry for the confusion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not a hoax (that was Михаил Андреевич Голицын), just a very poor translation. Colchicum (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this can be salvaged. The person in question is of course Mikhail Andreyevich Galitzine. His son btw is more notable and has six articles about him scattered all over WP. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources found by this search, such as [21][22][23], to confirm that the subject was a prince and a provincial governor - way over the bar for notability. I don't see what's so unsalvageable about the article that would make it better to delete it and start again rather than build on what we've got. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Goodall

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

Books have only received minor notice (Clarion Award includes awards to condom adverts, direct mail hawkers, the latest in his category was to a collection of emergency services animal rescue stories) and he was not elected and did not received significant coverage so cannot claim political notabilty either. Non notable biography. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage for this author/activist and his book in the G-News archives: See Christian Today, The Guardian etc. The article needs work, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian Today does not strike me as a amazingly unbiased and reliable source, the Guardian bit isn't even about him...though if we need it, it can help build a case for the notability of Marks and Spencers or Carbon Offsetting. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN Codf1977 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Obviously I think it should be gone, per the reasons I gave above. His novels fall short of that criteria and his politician creds don't check out and I do not believe there is any significant coverage of him as a person to justify this article. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I listed more sources (check the article, please):

Btw, WP:POLITICIAN is not the only relevant guideline here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of those are more about the book than him. One is using his book to slap someone else around. It is just the news grabbing onto the outlandish claims in his book or a bit of a copy selling laugh. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "outlandish claims" were noted by multiple reliable media. I don't judge theories, they're foolish for some and wise for others. I would agree with merging this bio to How to Live a Low-Carbon Life. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect -- failed candidate = NN; author of a book on which we have an article does not necessarily make him notable; hence redirect ot book. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low-level political candidate, non-notable author. This individual does not pass WP:GNG or any of the more specific guidelines. SnottyWong ^prattle 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author. Just noticed that he did a book review for Nature Reports no less. Johnfos (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Sufficient notability as an author. I encourage a lower bar for politicians, since they are "public figures" by nature, and that's additional worth to the topic. It's just a stub, needs improvement, obviously, but deletion is not the answer here. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask which bit of the author guidelines you believe he has passed? And a lower bar for politicians (which I would lean towards supporting, were it not for a CoI) is a good debate t have, but one for the policy pages and not something to be driven by AfDs. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable politician, and that coverage there is of his life and texts fails the "significance" test. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the WP:Author notability criterion 3, Goodall has created a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The periodicals include Journal of Environmental Health Research [24], The Guardian [25], The Times [26], New Scientist [27] [28], as well as many notable articles written by Goodall [29] [30] [31] [32]. Johnfos (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reviews are sufficient to establish notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notably of this author clearly established per Johnfos' list.--E8 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Perfectly reasonable nomination, but the arguments in favor of the article are enough that I don't see a consensus to delete. Improved sourcing still is desireable, of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Morris

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

Will all due respect to the work put in by the article's creater and quasi-sole contributor, there is nothing here in this undersourced article, or in websearches for 'Hong Kong Morris' which indicates that this organisation is in any way notable. Most of the information is, by definition, only known to individuals in the club, and is largely unverifiable to reliable third party sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, and without prejudice to further thoughts I may have, there are at least two reasons why this morris side is notable: (1) it continues to flourish as a notable example of the resilience of Western cultural activity in postcolonial Hong Kong; and (2) in the 1980s it may well have been the largest morris side in the world.

The second point will need verification, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

What have people got against the side, anyway? There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles on morris sides, none of which are as notable as Hong Kong Morris, in my humble view.

Djwilms (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's plenty of Western cultural activity in Hong Kong after 1997; no scholars or journalists appear to regard this group as a notable example of such activity. From a Google search, there do not appear to be any non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources about this group; the entire article has been written based on someone's personal knowledge of the group, or their own website. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of writing. cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to incubating/userfying the article. There may be sources (as discussed below), but the article as it stands needs a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's standards --- which should be done by someone who has access to the sources and is NOT a member of the group. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the point on size. Most UK and US Morris sides are lucky to get between 10 and 20 members. At its peak, in 1986, the Hong Kong Morris had more than 50 active members. I'm pretty sure no Cotswold side elsewhere in the world can beat that record, and the fact that the side was 'provincial', i.e. located in a British colony with no other sides nearby, makes its numbers all the more notable.

Another point, which I feel needs wider discussion, is that it is absurd to try to enforce the 'notability' criteria. This pass has been sold long ago, whether we like it or not. There are any number of articles on Wikipedia on topics that, to the fair-minded reader, are not notable in any way. Wikipedia, for better or worse, has become a repository of quaint and curious information (I have improved my own education by reading the articles on some of the western world's more obscure sexual practices, for example), and we can't put back the clock.

I am perfectly happy to ground the Hong Kong Morris's notability on its size, if you don't accept that its survival after 1997 is in itself notable. Though some people seem to think it is, judging by the reference in the second paragraph of this website: [33].

Djwilms (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Djwilms, despite what you've said about HK Morris, there is a notability criteria that we need to apply to articles. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. And you're absolutely right, there are a number of articles on WP that cover topics that are not notable. That only means they should be nominated for deletion, their existence does not justify the creation of articles on other non-notable topics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Notability criteria carefully, and it seems to me that this article is eminently justifiable on the grounds that in 1986 the team was the largest Cotswold morris side in the world, despite being based in a provincial location like Hong Kong. If that's not notable, what is? Neither you nor the previous contributor have addressed this point at all.

Djwilms (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, not by size or location or Wikipedia having other articles on similar topics. Please see WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, cab (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to dig out an influential 1984 publication by the Morris Ring, called, I think, simply The Morris Dance, that showcased around ten of the world's leading morris sides, with articles and photographs. Hong Kong Morris was one of them, and I remember that the article title was 'Even in Hong Kong ...' A quotation from that will, I think, amply demonstrate the team's notability. I've got it at home somewhere, and will get back to you in a day or so.

Djwilms (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once deleted, a reproduction is tiresome and then energy put behind, such a lengthy article gets wasted. I found it interesting, and making wiki interesting , is what we all do. We have to measure an article with all the given rules, if they are contentious and leads to further debates. This article is good information, and will never invite any mutiples opinions. Keep it as long as it is not harmful. CosmasIndi (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — CosmasIndi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- ~~Extremely disappointing to see such blatant meatpuppetry in a debate for an article that was already riddled with conflict-of-interest issues. cab (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Not going to press this issue because it doesn't make too much difference. Djwilms' explanation is below. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what 'meatpuppetry' (what a ridiculous term!) is, but I can assure you that I have not attempted to mobilise my Wikipedia fan club, and that I have no idea who CosmasIndi is. I am, of course, grateful for his (or her) support, and am also glad that he/she found the article interesting. I aim to please.

As I mentioned earlier, I am trying to locate documentation which will amply demonstrate the notability of the Hong Kong Morris. I intend to win this absurd argument on the merits of my case, and will get back to this page shortly.

Djwilms (talk)

Something very strange is going on when a new contributor shows up on a week-old AfD debate directly after leaving a comment on the talk page of the article's main author. Regardless, administrators generally ignore "keep" arguments based on reasons like "the article doesn't hurt anyone" or "it's interesting" anyway, regardless of who they're coming from.

More importantly --- the source you mention I assume is the newsletter mentioned here [34]. Well, are there any other sources? WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." Regards, cab (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw CosmasIndi's comment on my talk page only after I wrote to you. He appears to be an Indian Christian who has recently involved himself in a discussion, in which I am heavily involved, on the sources for the article Ahatallah. I assume that he found this page (since Morris dancing is probably outside his normal areas of interest) by looking at my recent edits. I did not ask him to intervene on my behalf and am surprised (though flattered) that he did so on his own initiative. Your accusations of meatpuppetry are quite unwarranted.

The source you have identified is, I think, the regular newsletter. The publication I am looking for was a one-off booklet, The Morris Tradition, published in 1984. I know I have it at home, and as tomorrow is a public holiday in Hong Kong I will try to unearth it then. There were also several articles (often with accompanying photographs) on the Hong Kong Morris in the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard in the 1980s and 1990s, but I don't know whether it's possible to retrieve the text of these articles.

Djwilms (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard's online archives go back to 1994; the SCMP's to 1993. HKU has archives going farther back, but you have to have an HKU library login (faculty, staff, student, or friend of the library). You would find people are more willing to assume good faith if you weren't writing an article about a group of which you're a member ... cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only on the basis of one voter and the main author of the article being accused of collusion and meatpuppetry (the delete vote lost the argument when that happened). Having said that, I enjoy looking at the article again in a couple of weeks to some SCMP etc. references, and if at all possible, some actual Chinese language newspapers - even as presumably a guailo activity pre-1997 it would be surprising if the performance on the container and the one for Patton did not get into 蘋果日報? Djwilms you might also want to add a short line about how (apparently) the mainland name is 莫里斯舞 (New Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007), and how the British Council considers this form of dancing worth promoting as UK culture source for you here. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the elegant amendments to 'Invention of Traditions', and thanks also for that information on Chinese names for morris: most interesting. In fact, at one point we used to use 莫里斯舞 in our name, though Ancient English Dance Platoon eventually won out because 'Moh lei si', a direct transliteration of 'morris', meant nothing to Hong Kong Chinese audiences. When we toured in Taiwan in 1989 there was some debate among our interpreters on what to call my concertina, an instrument that had not yet featured on Chinese radar. Accordians and melodeons are 'hand-wind pianos' (shoufengqin), and my concertina was duly christened a 'six-corner piano' (liujiaoqin). I subsequently became the 'six-sided windbag' to most of the side's members.

I would love to find good sources for this article (look at all my other articles, they are all punctiliously sourced), and now that I have learned that I can access SCMP and HKS articles back to the early 90s (for a price, no doubt), I hope I can begin providing the documentation that we would all like to see.

Djwilms (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, though I was sorely tempted to delete out the Manila bells bit, as being a bit too unconstipated for Wikipedia. And yes as a happy coincidence of this deletion discussion I did browse some of your examplarily sourced articles on Mar Thoma etc. I think we all agree that Newspaper articles are perfectly reasonable sources for "local interest" articles like this; for example CaliforniaAliBaba's excellent Tianweiban article is built on the regulation 3 newspaper sources. If the access isn't pay-per-look then I wonder if you'd consider using the access to decent sources to write a new more general article e.g. Gweilo subculture in the category:Hong Kong culture, linking onwards to Hong Kong Morris, Hong Kong Sevens, Lan Kwai Fong, Hash House Harriers, etc.etc., since Gweilo doesn't contain anything of interest, and from an anthropological point of view the Mid-Levels Gweilo must be/have been one of the "notable" Hill Tribes of Asia. Cheers In ictu oculi (and btw - I added 六角琴 to en.wiktionary as "English concertina". Odd that Taiwanese in 1989 should not have know an instrument reasonably well known in mainland China today). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be an official Chinese term for concertina (oddly enough, I've never bothered to look it up; perhaps I should). Liujiaoqin was coined by our Taiwanese interpreter on the spot because he wanted to talk about our instruments, (melodeons, concertinas, accordians) and shoufengqin was the only term he knew in Chinese. None of us could help him out, so that's what he came up with.

Gweilo subculture, eh? ... You inspire me! But do you think it's a sufficiently notable topic for Wikipedia?

I think I need to fiddle with the reference to Blow the Man Down. Phil's song was not that one, but a different one, with a chorus that went something like this (I'm quoting from memory, not having heard the song for over a quarter of a century):

Farewell Mister Rooney, Ta Ta Mister Lynch,

Come Regan give my kind regards to Jim and Andy Clinch,

Farewell [somebody else Irish], Let's tell the neighbours round,

I'm off to be a Chinaman, for Hong Kong I'm bound.

The most memorable line in the song was 'I'll wear my hair in a long pigtail like Rooney's donkey's tail.' He also drinks 'gunpowder tea' at one point.

Interestingly, we all thought it was the only English folksong in existence that mentioned Hong Kong. Not so, evidently, and thanks for drawing that to my attention. I'll probably finesse that sentence by calling Phil's song 'one of the very few English folksongs to mention Hong Kong, etc', and either removing the reference to Blow the Man Down altogether or relegating it to an informative footnote.

I've now found the booklet I was looking for, and have added a reference to our appearance in The Morris Tradition in 1985.

Djwilms (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please do not mistake me with User:Djwilms. am from India, as mentioned earlier, me and User:Djwilms were having a debate around the article Ahathalla. I was just spying his edits and found the article on Hong Kong Morris.....:-). I found something new and interesting, hence thought of posting an opinion. If not in wiki, I would have never known about the Morris. Also sockpuppet investigations are already up against me, and anyone who touches Ahathalla .... :-) Cheers.CosmasIndi (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found one of the sources I was looking for, and have added a reference in the section Early History to the feature on the Hong Kong Morris in the Morris Ring publication The Morris Tradition in 1985.

Djwilms (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a telling photograph from 1994. I can count 36 dancers in the photograph alone, and there were also others in the UK who didn't attend the twentieth anniversary celebrations.

Djwilms (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phenom (Hip Hop Musician)

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

Declined speedy. Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Refs primarily appear to be self-authored music sites/blogs, with all or most being a substantial copy of each other. Name of the artist (Phenom) makes GHits all but impossible to determine. Written by manager of artist, violates WP:COI, WP:SPAM. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Despite being a well-written article, GregJackP pretty took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Adrian Hernandez

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

Delete. Classic WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to U.S. Border Patrol. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging any relevant information to U.S. Border Patrol. As I mentioned on the talk page, I feel that this page only adds to the family's victimization in loser their child. By definition, this child will never be notable for anything other than his tragic death. I know I probably sound over emotional about this, but I think this is exactly why we have WP:BLP1E. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A10 already detailled in oncology and looks like a blatant hoax A3 Polargeo (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iatromology

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

This does not seem to exist as a discipline, a google search reveals only this article Quasihuman (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax or joke: oncology is the study of the treatment of tumors. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 Tone 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken buck

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

original was promo piece, this is an attack page, original was deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Buck Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 as the recreation of the Ken Buck article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. Are District Attorney's of counties' not automatically notable? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 12:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at WP:POLITICIAN it does not look like they are automatically notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Possibly G4 speedy delete). Ken Buck fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage from running for office does not establish notability. Poll numbers don't establish notability either. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article establishes notability. I can't find significant coverage of him to establish notability

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison "Nugget" Matasi

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, does not assert any standings, competition wins, anything at all that makes her particularly notable Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just added in the article a blurb about her finishing 1st at the All Girls Skate Jam in Chula Vista. I also added a link to verify. If you wanted more info about Alison Matasi just google her name & all kinds of links will show up. Feel free to add any you like. These links, I hope, will help to verify how much of a household name Nugget has become in the world of female pro skateboarding. She has become quite notable in the skateboarding world in the last few years & so I believe deserves a wikipedia article about her. If you're not sure just google her name & find out. robfromvan 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfromvan (talk • contribs)
Delete Finishing first in a competition does not raise one to the level of notability. Article would need expansion and far better sourcing to keep Vartanza (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear what the WP:ATHLETE standard would be for skateboarders, but this subject does not meet the general notability guidelines. Outside of this one mention, there appears to be no other coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull 03:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" comments here were not strong arguments. One was basically "I vote keep", along with ad hominem comments about the nominator. Another was that the editor was "confident" more sources existed, though he/she didn't actually bring any. A third was essentially "sufficient information" and "seems reasonable", neither of which are policy or guideline based rationales. The only strong "keep" comment was basically that one Reliable Source existed, combined with sufficient information about the individual and a rational argument regarding why the person should be considered notable despite not matching the qualifications outlined in the guidelines. On the other hand, the "delete" comments were all soundly grounded in policy and guideline - insufficient coverage in reliable third party publications to demonstrate notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Vohwinkel

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

Delete, unable to locate evidence of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications which would demonstrate notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I also cannot find any substantial, independent coverage of this person. Reyk _YO! 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just another in a string of IDONTLIKEIT nominations by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your comments focused on the subject of the article. Please note that this is not a vote, and if the best you can do is say "same user doesn't like this" then your comments are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Furthermore, your implied accusation is false, I am more ambivalent or neutral than anything about the subject matter. The problem lies with a huge walled garden of unsourced and non-notable WP:BLP articles plaguing Wikipedia. And if you're saying I don't like that, then you would be right. I don't. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can comment on everyone who votes keep trying to make the closing admin discount those votes all you want. I vote keep and it counts as a vote. This article subject is fine and in line with BLP. Hooper (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow. Just... wow. This is not a vote. Newsflash! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will not discuss the matter with you further, as your recent string of AfDs makes it impossible for me to assume good faith, something that I hate to admit but is the truth. Good day. Hooper (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The bottom line here is that this is not a vote and this article has no sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. What you assume or do not assume is irrelevant to that end. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sounding too impolite here, your confidence is not enough. If no sources exist, neither should the article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is weak, though I've added one independent RS (an interview). Per WP:N there is a reasonable case for deletion as there is only one solid independent RS (there are other RSes, just not independent including his own bio). However, this is one of those (fairly rare) times I find WP:IAR to be important in this context. A review of a bunch of sources ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39] to name a very few) make it plain he's very well known in the field. The breadth and depth of his work is huge (I must own at least 50 different pieces by him between D&D, boardgames, and MtG). He's the main artist/art designer for 5 or 6 (I lost count) of the top 100 board games including the #1 game. Also, given that Scrye and other magazines tend to cover artists, I strongly suspect there is more RS coverage of him. We have the RS and his own bio, so we have plenty to write. So keep. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, [40] shows him having art credits for more than 310 games. This doesn't include his work for D&D and counts his MtG work as a single thing. I know all about WP:BIGNUMBER, but that's still darn remarkable and might be unique to him. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 08:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient information. Notability is a guideline intended to be interpreted flexibly, and does not require anything specific it is seems reasonable, as it does here. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Dewritech (talk) 10:03, 5 July 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Avery (soccer)

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

A minor soccer coach with no evidence of notability per WP:BIO (substantial in-depth coverage or multiple independent sources) or WP:ATHLETE (involvement at professional or international amateur level). See also the discussion here andy (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn - notability has been demonstrated. andy (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO states the following: People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable. Mike Avery does not appear to be a professional. Btilm 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM. Too low a level. College football participation as either player or coach does not meet notability criteria on its own, and nothing out there to show Avery has done anything else of note.--ClubOranje^T 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that NCAA coaches meet the notable criteria. Mike Avery has over 2,000 hits on a google search TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral. Gridiron aside, college football is a lot closer to the major US sports than MLS is. Also, I'm in absolutely no doubt that Avery himself is a professional (albeit his players are not). WFCforLife (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The edits made since my last post (1400 GMT on 29 June 2010) establish that he played in the American Professional Soccer League, then the highest level of football in America and Canada, meaning that he clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. The subsequent assertions of notability in his coaching career take his notability beyond any doubt for those (including myself) who don't see ATHLETE as the be-all-and-end-all. WFCforLife (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well spotted. Eliteimp (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - I'm withdrawing my nomination. andy (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is his appearance data? Which year did he supposedly play for Santa Barbara? they only had one season in the APSL. I see no reliable source to back up such claims. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.--ClubOranje^T 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in his biog, cited in the article - [41]. However maybe that still doesn't make it so. andy (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During a four-year span, he enjoyed stints with Real Santa Barbara and Askims (Sweden). He also served as a player-coach for the Indiana Invaders." Full of weasewl words and doesn't cut it for me. He may have played for their third team, reserves or Sunday social side for all that tells me. Every other player that has played professionally has stats quoted on numerous sites. Every other player under AfD that casually claims to play professionally for a club gets deleted unless there is evidence they actually took the field for a competitive match. Are we lowering the bar now? do we no longer require verifiability? --ClubOranje^T 07:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but I don't think this will be deleted at this AfD so I don't see much point in continuing. If you want to do a non-admin closure on this one and start another one with a fresh set of arguments then let me know (I think that should be OK). There are several other similar articles by the same author that have the same problem. andy (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be improper for me to close this non-admin as an involved party. I'll raise it at Talk:Mike Avery (soccer) in the first instance. All I want to see is a reliable source, which shouldn't be so hard...if it happened. Cheers.--ClubOranje^T 11:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 08:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Free Again. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Like Cola

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

Stub article about an unreleased single. WP:NSONGS is quite clear that an independent article is inappropriate. Author contested redirect to Lou Bega. I42 (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Free Again. I'm not finding significant coverage for this song; fails WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Free Again per gongshow. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Verlinden

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. no extensive coverage [42]. have a lot of hits on youtube does not advance notability see WP:BIG. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources already in article ([43] [44]) constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the sources also refers to him being a guest on Sunrise (New Zealand TV program), which I am unable to find a clip of but would also constitute significant coverage by a reliable independent source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The argument for notability seems to be based on a "flash in the pan" occurrence, see WP:NRVE. One notorious appearance as a variety act and success in talent shows is a weak case for notability unless the talent contests are particularly noteworthy (unsure on this). The article also seems heavily geared toward promoting the subject rather than reporting on it, though that could be salvaged with rewrites and neutral sources. Csrwizard (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudiceif his career should happen to take off again. Only one news result since November 2008 (singing at Christmas in the Park). From what I've read, there is no national competition to qualify for the Hollywood competition - just one talent agency organises a team. Appearing on "Sunrise" per se certainly isn't proof of notability.dramatic (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources already in article re Sunrise TV interview ([45]

Confirming there is a National NZ Competition to qualify for Hollywood competition 'Aim to Fame' [www.aimtofame.co.nz] Source has been working in NZ professional musical theatre productions, ie; 'Oliver' with the Auckland Theatre Company and as 'John' in Peter Pan with National Youth Theatre Company, 'Young Tommy' in the Tommy Musical with Stage Two Productions and just recently as Macduff's son in Macbeth with Stage Two Productions. This source is 12 years old with a solid career ahead of him. Currently sitting around 22nd most subscribed musician in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.167.8 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants a userfy, just ask at my talk page later. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J H Matthews

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

NN person, with few Google hits CTJF83 chat 07:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 09:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a classical scholar in a rather arcane area which google does not cover well and he published before google became important. Anyway, why should google be the arbiter of what is or is not notable or important? It is just one of the factors to be considered. The subject is certainly important in three particular areas: classical studies in New Zealand, New Zealand literature influenced by the classics and the study of Hellenic poetry. I think this article should be 'Retained for further development.Rick570 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Google is the easiest way to find out if someone has WP:Significant coverage, if you can show that by other mediums, please link us. CTJF83 chat 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a little bit below the criteria - SimonLyall (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem particularly, or even sufficiently, notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is not an academic, i.e holding an academic position in a university or similar. He is an independent classical scholar who has published on various matters in his field. He has a status in his field of endeavour. I am surprised that you are making such a big deal about this person when the hurdle in other areas are so low, like sport or popular music, for example. Why such an issue about this person, who is certainly notable in his field, just as certain otherwise obscure sports persons may be in theirs. To confine consideration to the internet is too narrow. It excludes so many people. I am researching other material, but it will take longer than a week to access it.Rick570 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we userfy this article until such time as more references can be found, per the above comment.-gadfium 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this the same person as R J H Matthews-Břeský, who wrote a number of papers on English pedagogy in the 1970s? Google scholar doesn't show a lot of citations for them but I'm not persuaded one way or another by that as it doesn't seem to be the sort of subject that GS is good at finding citations on. Anyway, if it is the same person, this would give a broader basis for expanding the article and/or finding reliable sources to prove notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name is a puzzle but Matthews was a teacher of English in Switzerland and he did his Ph.D at Univ of Berne (German medium probably). It all fits together. I will do some more research when I get time. Thank you David for your help.Rick570 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the other benefits of retaining the article it should be noted that we list one of his works as perhaps our only proper ref. (under further reading) in our article: Māori_influence_on_New_Zealand_English. The refs is R. J. H. Matthews (1984). Maori Influence on New Zealand English. World Englishes 3 (3), 156–159. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1984.tb00597.x (Msrasnw (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment:The problem is that the article's references are mostly to Matthews' own works. What it needs is references to other publications which say that Matthews or his works are important.-gadfium 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is demonstrated neither in the article or in the few references that have been uncovered since this was nominated. Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BitGravity

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

Just an ad for this company, no significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: yet another generic non-consumer online business with no claim to historical, technical, or cultural significance: a CDN (Content Delivery Network). It uses technology for global distribution called BitCast (a mixture between a global file system and Anycast). BitGravity provided IPv6 services and HD stream services. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No indication of any significant change since previous AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Crowd

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

This article was deleted by clear AfD consensus in January. Now there is some more coverage, but it's all in blogs and it's mostly staffing and financing announcements. I highly suspect COI and think the initial AfD should stand. Haakon (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the first and this one too. I'm a friend of Barrett's and do think he is one to watch, hence me creating the page. I did the same for BitGravity when it launched. I am acting in good faith here. My wiki experience is limited to only a few things, as you can see.Newtonke (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, would also like to add that this is a really new market. To take existing CDN's, which were designed to cut costs for serving content, like videos and patches, as an example Microsoft uses Akemai for patches, and turn them into one big CDN. Costs are cut by finding the most affordable service at the moment. Also, performance can be improved by picking the best performer at a specific price. It doesn't sound like much, but I believe it is a first step to providing an environment where content can be served very cheaply. The youtubes and ustreams out there provide a user the ability to stream for free now, but the company is flipping the bill for them, under their terms. This may remove those conditions, or make them so cheap, the conditions are really based on user preference. As a security guy, this has nothing to do with me, but I really think it is interesting to watch...I can try to add more about the technology if that would help...Newtonke (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Oakey

Notability has been repeatedly claimed, but not established, as none of the "references" provided are verifiable - no mention on Google. Technopat (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please check article history. I first used Prod and then proposed an A7 speedy delete. Both were removed. --Technopat (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there appears to be a credible claim of importance, I can not verify any of the information in the article. I can not find a single reference that even mentions a professional boxer named Jonathan Oakey. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've declined the speedy on this one on the grounds that the Yorkshire Evening Post was cited, despite the fact the article is not available online. However, there doesn't seem to be anything else. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm currently looking for credible references, so would hate for this to be deleted.

In reality Mr Oakey is now finely established in the boxing world, I'm just struggling to find strong references, I'm guessing because of the young age. As one of his promoters, I know myself of his achievements, so am working hard for him to be verified. Please note I am meeting with his manager tomorrow, so should come back with something good. I also believe Jonathan Oakey fills the criteria for WP:ATH, as he is a recognised professional in the boxing world, and also has reached the highest level of amateur boxing possible before reaching the age of recieving a professional contract. Thanks people. Mastafashh (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black swan story

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as I believe it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), and I don't really think any amount of work can save it. I have the greatest respect for the men who fought at Arnhem, but I don't believe that a short film about the making of a music video about an event in the battle, is itself independently notable enough to warrant an article. The article seems to fail every criteria that would support inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (films), except perhaps point 5. Even then I don't believe there are sufficient reliable sources to back it up (note that only 3 of the 7 sources for the article are actually about the film, and only one is what I would describe as detailed enough). Any information here is better placed in one of the following articles; John Pott (British Army officer), Athlete (band), Black Swan (album) or Black Swan Song (if it gets expanded into an article, its currently just a redirect). Added to which, it would appear that the maker of the film himself created this article, and it seems a stretch to imagine that anyone else would have written it. Essentially I think it comes down to common sense. Hundreds of documentaries are released each day and very very few of them, of higher notability than this, would warrant an article. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps with a suitable redirect to one of the above articles. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NF per nom. EyeSerene^talk 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Black Swan Story' will be featuring in a Learning Pack, CD-Rom/ DVD, funded by The Legion and distributed in schools and learning centres from October 2010. The producers of the learning package extimate that will be '2.5 million young people accessing our resources'. I hope that with the information I have added you can reconsider deleting this page. - Richard Edkins. The film's imdb listing is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675822/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.111.60.15 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of san francisco rugby football club

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

NN group, only G search results is Facebook, and not much more when 'football' is removed from the search CTJF83 chat 04:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I believe that the program is historically notable, plagiarism isn't welcome here, ever. Take your copy-and-paste skills somewhere else. Mandsford 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tone 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LPG gas expire date

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

WP:NOTAGUIDE...not sure which WP:SD tag applies.... CTJF83 chat 03:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly if not speedily. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic consumer advice in first person voice. First Light (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has never been a consensus for articles like this to be speedable, despite repeated proposals. There were just too many ways to misuse such a criterion, but this would have been a textbook case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up - I was looking for a speedy reason before it came here to Afd, and couldn't see one. It helped to understand why.... First Light (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. To say this violates WP:NOTESSAY would be an understatement. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure speedy. This has been identified as a hoax here [46] in April. FWIW, but note identical text so it may be either a db-hoax or db-copyvio. East of Borschov 07:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopedia article, no reliable sources to verify the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 09:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Knox County Commission Races

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

WP:CRYSTAL all unsourced speculation CTJF83 chat 03:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently someone's political prognostications about what might happen in Knox County, Tennessee, four years from now. Sorry, no. Not even worth printing in the Daily Beacon. Mandsford 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't even tell which Knox County it is. CTJF83 chat 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fountain City" was a clue. Still, this has to be one of the most uninteresting contributions I've ever seen to Wikipedia. Mandsford 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't even know who will win the 2010 election yet, so why should we give a flip about what's going on in 2014 yet? Nate • (chatter) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 2014 is not that far away and is notable. Press releases and updates can happen years before an election happens so there could be a case to keep this article as more information emerges. It would, however, have to be re-written so that it reads better. CrazyMiner (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn A Campbell

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

Unreferenced BLP which is essentially a resume. No sources can be found to establish the notability of this individual. Fails WP:BIO. The BLPPROD tag I initially put on this article was removed, because apparently the external links in this article count as "sources" for BLPPROD. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, as a single Grammy nomination isn't considered enough. I'm surprised that this wasn't G11ed. I'm going to nominate The Arkitects for deletion as well, as I can't find any sign that they meet notability criteria either. Claritas §
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one article is not significant coverage. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renée Estevez

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

Unimportant sibling to two famous actors, Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Tailcoating is not a valid reason for an article. Not notable herself, Tovojolo (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she was a regular on The West Wing (43 episodes as the President's secretary)-- her father Martin is also kind of famous-- it would appear that she's notable. That she isn't as "important" as the other Sheens isn't a reason to describe her as unimportant. She's entitled to be judged on her own merits. Mandsford 01:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actress in her own right and from a generationally famous Hollywood acting family. Easily meets notability. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Keep - She had a recurring role on the West Wing and other fairly major roles. I think she barely meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers #1. I'm a little concerned that I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. West Wing, second billing in Intruder, and credited roles in films like Heathers and Single White Female look good enough to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her roles are enough to establish notability. I have added three sources to the article so some of the information can be verified. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is seriously the dumbest AfD I've ever seen. The notion of her not being notable is stupid. BLGM5 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth assuming good faith here. Rather than attacking the nomination, it's better to comment on why the subject meets or fails Wikipedia's standards. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has been around for well over 3 years, with several thousand edits. Things like these just waste time. BLGM5 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do comments like yours. They are inappropriate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did not in any way assume bad faith - he opined poor judgement. I think the poor judgement is obvious, even in the best of faith. It appears to be some sort of disease on AFD to confuse the two. There are such things as frankly terrible nominations (and this is one), and I can't see how it does Wikipedia any good to feign denial that there are - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notible in her own right. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... heck... SNOW keep. If her notabilty were dependent on her family, the nominator's concerns would be valid, but as she has independent notability and coverage, and a healthy body of work as an actress, she easily meets WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Research Program

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

This is a program of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. WINEP is obviously notable, but notability isn't inherited and I can't find any third-party references talking about this program. Prezbo (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Mike Cline (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally WP:ORG states that "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article."Prezbo (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough content to fill its own article, so its a valid content fork. It is quite encyclopedic and what Wikipedia was created to hold. That reasoning alone should be enough to keep the article. If you want to bother spending a few brief moments clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, you will find 81 results, they considering this a notable group, quoting from it or its members, mentioning their association with it to add to their credibility. Dream Focus 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- All of those Google results are just variants on "according to Soner Cagaptay, who directs the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy...". That's not "significant coverage." I don't think it's that encyclopedic, it was created by User:Turkish program and is pretty spammy.Prezbo (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the main organization. I did considerable trimming, but I think it just might be the main organization of its kind. I'd like to see some real sources to indicate that, though. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the main organization. In contrast to the vast array of articles of dubious merit (list of bad movies, etc), this article fits comfortably within the mission of the encyclopedia and has tangible utility. We would be better off spending energy attempting to improve it rather wrestling with the 'to be, or not to be' question.Mavigogun (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's left, there's a long history of COI/promotional edits here. Hairhorn (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no skin off my back if someone wants to move content from this article into the WINEP article. However "Keep" and "Merge" are very different things and for the former to be defensible I think someone needs to produce some sources.Prezbo (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Soup (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They are on the cusp of notability but their fortunes could turn either way. I personally know bands that are MORE notable than this group but I still consider them on that cusp and haven't made articles about them. I hope this article will be re-created if and when verifiavle resources establish notability per WP:BAND. --Griseum (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Griseum pointed out, they seem to be on the cusp of notability but only two local newspaper refs doesn't seem like much to recommend them at this point. Recommend better referencing to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings of South Korea

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

WP:NOT#STATS. WP:PROD removed by article creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge like International rankings of Australia or Keep like International rankings of the United States. Polarpanda (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar to International rankings of the United States. WP:NOT#STATS refers to "Long and sprawling lists" or "excessive" stats - this is neither. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's about 10 times longer than International rankings of the United States or Australia#International rankings. Looks excessive to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an issue to be solved by editing not deletion. Polarpanda (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Zeleznik

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

Delete. Lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. extransit (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is discussed in Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror:1991 : A Comprehensive Bibliography of Books and Short Fiction Published in the English Language and has artbooks published by three different publishers. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is a weird one because numerous artists whose works are familiar to literally thousands of sci-fi and RPG fans aren't notable enough for Wikipedia because they get relatively little media attention and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This seems to be the case here as well. --Griseum (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And an easy choice. There are no independent references. Only the subject's own website. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment — Per: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." No offense intended to the editor reciting the party line, but we need to send that destructive dogma to the bottom of the sea. VERACITY + VERIFIABILITY + NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, screw notability. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to list an article on Wikipedia, there are guidelines, including a requirement of notability. The article in question does not meet inclusion standards by the site's own guidelines, not your's or mine, so a suggestion of "screw" the standards is not an acceptable argument for inclusion. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Verifiability is a policy, and it matters but the subject's own web site is sufficient for that unless contested. . Notability is a guideline, that even more than most guidelines permits of exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A subject's own website is not an "independent, reliable" source and as such cannot stand alone as a means of establishing notability on Wikipedia. I wrote an article with TWO independent references and half a dozen local publications that had also written about the paper and it was deleted anyway. Even when you have what you would think are the proper references, someone will come along and nom it anyway, then it just comes down a straight concensus of keep/delete. Not the best way, but its the way the site operates. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Keep - I agree with the points made by Edward321, Carrite, and DGG. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are quite a few fantasy illustrators who have made a name for themselves by winning the Chesley or the Hugo or the Spectrum Grand Master award, or being artist guest of honor at a major con, or some such, and I think we should have articles on them. Zeleznik does not seem to be at that level, however. And despite some searching I can't find much of anything in the way of reliable third-party sources about him. I agree that he has some level of name recognition (at least, I had heard of his name independently of Wikipedia) but unless we can document it with sources I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daze

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

Recreated after deletion, the album does not even exist yet. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what you said didn't give any reason to delete. Its charted passes Wp:NSONGS. STAT -Verse 03:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:SONG and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This song has not reached #1, has not won awards, and has not even been reviewed or commented on by reliable external sources. LK (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this is not a re-creation. Although every person and xyr dog seemed to want to scribble about their own musical act all over it, the previous article, for most of its lifetime, was about a Danish musical group. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo it doesn't have to reach #1 to meet that part of WP:NSONGS STAT -Verse 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the charting. We could consider merging the verifiable information to the artist page at Ja-Bar if survives its AfD, where I also commented. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Henderson

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

Non-notable footballer. No 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Fails WP:ATHLETE not played professionally. See BBC:"Richard Henderson has been released after failing to break into the reserve team". Tassedethe (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he has moved to Alabama to play American Football, there is nothing out there on this kid of note anywhere. Seems to have never played football at a notable level. Soccerbase mentions Raith but no appearances, failed to make a ripple at Albraith, PDL is too low a level.--ClubOranje^T 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he did play once for Raith Rovers, as the article suggests, he might be ok given that SFL1 is considered a "fully professional league" on Wikipedia. However he seems to have been farmed out to Lochee Harp for most of the time he was contracted to Raith. Eliteimp (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearances for Raith in either 2003/04 or 2004/05 unless he was the mysterious "B Triallist" (which probably can't be proved), no other evidence of play at a professional level, no general sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelemvor Lyonsbane

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - main character in the first three novels of the Avatar Series, and had an important role in the followup novels; went on to become a fixture in the Forgotten Realms RPG setting as a deity since then, so fairly notable in the Forgotten Realms overall. I think this one can stand on its own. I wonder why a merge wasn't considered before this one went to AFD?[47] BOZ (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - To be notable in Forgotten Realms is not to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The general notability guideline requires that a subject receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but this character has received no such coverage. Neelix (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And merge was not an option? It looks like you have already merged a number of other characters in the series into a list, so what is different about this one that it should be deleted instead? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, as it fails WP:GNG, per WP:BDK. Claritas § 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Then we can merge at our leisure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: looks like there is a consensus for a merge between these !votes. Editors can work out how to summarize and merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let us not pretend we have any agreed guidelines for fictional characters; a reasonable alternative standard is that major characters in major fiction get articles. The WP:N guidelines provide liberally for exceptions to the GNG, which is merely a default optional standard. Unmerge the others that are principal characters while we are at it, since merges can be considered here if they are contested. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities- and this does not mean "Lazy copy & paste dump". Very little in this article is sourced to anything, nothing is sourced to the independent sources which are required by policy in order for a stand-alone article to exist, and almost all of it is horrible in-universe cruft. This article needs to be aggressively attacked with a big cruft-scraping tool of some kind. The little relevant, useful content is appropriate in List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Moeskops

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

Bio of a real estate professional. As far as I can tell, one of the external links confirms his status but beyond that I see no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. He's had bits of coverage before, mainly in the Dutch press, for his real estate investment,[48][49] and the recent announcement that he's joining a fairly obscure Brunei investment firm as a director after they bought his company doesn't tip him into notability, afaics. Fences&Windows 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any business owner/director get his name mentioned from time to time in a publication, but that doesn't make him notable. Besides, the article smells like self-promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Additional discussion about what to include in other related articles, whether or not to have a mention, etc, could take place, at Talk:World Trade Center site. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towers 2

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Skimlatte. His rationale, from the talk page, is as follows: "For almost 5 years this article has been of discussion. After review of existing citations there is little to no credibility of this project as an official idea. Just because a few news people have written to support it, it is opinion only. Donald Trump never adopted the plan to be built anywhere, much less NYC. The article in 2005 clearly presents a publicity opportunity for Donald Trump and no doubt it worked as shortly thereafter, the Freedom Tower's original design was changed to resemble the original North Tower. Recent endorsements by David Schuster were simply that, a newscasters personal opinion not fact. This article should be DELETED. It is not an article that can be Wikified and never will be. Continuing to present this article on Wiki allows for the failure of encyclopedic guidelines and diminishes the credibility of Wiki as a source. Delete now." Robofish (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as nominator. (I have searched for sources and seen that a few exist, but I'm not convinced this project deserves its own article.) Robofish (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't see problems with an unofficial design that can be found across the internet. I'm not an expert on the policies, though. . . Edit: I don't see any POV either. ShadeofTime09 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For, reasons WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTADVOCATE,WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NTEMP, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTADVOCATE 74.89.193.37 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not POV! Just because it is unofficial doesn't mean that Wikipedia advocates it. ShadeofTime09 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs additional sources but I don't see any indication it fails WP:Notability. Shadowjams (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't see any reliable third-party sources that provide significant coverage of this topic. Powers ^T 19:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Shadowjams, there are no additional sources to be found and I feel it fails on WP:NOTABILITY as it is a one event idea from 2004 on a hypothetical project by one man and some groupies. ShadeofTime it is POV as this is one man's point of view on how he thinks the former WTC should be built and to boot, he is advertising that idea in this forum and has been since 2005. Recent edits within the past month have made the article a bit better but not good enough - the template that shows the model is locked and it advertises that this design is proposed even though language has been amended in the header, clearly COI. I have painstakingly read all the talk pages history and viewed the websites where this project is maintained. Personal websites on the internet do not qualify as reliable sources. Skimlatte (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it deserves a separate article: it doesn't seem more notable than any of the hundreds of other proposals and competition designs for the site. However if there are any sources independent of the subject to confer it some level of notability, it could be mentioned in World Trade Center site. --Elekhh (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor Anosi

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

Apparent autobiographic article about a ballet "master" of questionable notibility. Some claims of notability made, but no sources are provided for corroboration. Only provided references are photographs - no significant coverage in independent third party sources provided. Google search on "Gabor Anosi" +ballet shows only 47 results. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously written by someone with limited English skills. No outside, independent references. Improper format. Non encyclopedic tone. Run on sentences... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Collection at Chevy Chase

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

I'm considering this one controversial enough to give it an AFD. Does not seem terribly notable, and the article is written in a very much peacockish fashion (famous for certain stores?). I question the notability of this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not speedy A7). It's just a small shop building (from a sat view it appears to be the smallest in the area). East of Borschov 19:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I fully expected to find this was just some 'ol little shopping center, but actually its notable as a very high end center, a somewhat novel development concept, and frequently called the "Rodeo Drive" of Washington D.C. Just peruse the load of references I just added (it had none at the time of the nomination -- they are bare URL cites, but can be tidied after AfD ends), it had massive coverage.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rodeo Drive is not a "white box" but a landmark district. The article is about a recent 11-thousand-meter shopping building. Perhaps it has a long history, perhaps it's an NRHP site, perhaps it has become a social phenomenon, tourist destination etc... then just say so in the article! Tell the world what makes it different from the nearest Walgreens? $150/ft rents [50]? Lucky bastards, they call it high (duh...)! What makes the bunching of the usual LVMH suspects "a novelty"? East of Borschov 04:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so in the article in abbreviated form. It only opened in 2005. Its notable because its a high end luxury center that is unique in the area - its not just some run of the mill thing, as evidenced by the massive amount of coverage I found very quickly. Most mega malls don't get this much coverage. So, it easily meets WP:N to me. I hate shopping (though oddly I do enjoy mall history stuff), but even I know Walgreens is not Barney's.--Milowent (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Messy article but enough of the sources are substantial third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Great Yarmouth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Yarmouth First Responders

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

The article has been deprodded without improvement. It still fails to show the significance of the subject but is instead written like a generic piece on first responders. Moreover I fail to see the notability of this particular group. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a VERY small bit of this (the part not violating any part of WP#NOT...) back into Great Yarmouth, from whence it is currently a WP:SS breakout. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably as above, but consider First Responder#Community First Responder Schemes or Community first responder. If redirected, some material might be moved to a second target with attribution.Novangelis (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wise County Public Schools. Verifiable information can be merged from the page history with attribution. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Woodrow Adams Combined School

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

Public primary school. A redirect to the appropriate school district was reverted. Per this edit, this article seems to have been created as a vehicle to advertize Pound's Performing Arts Center, which is located within the school building. Restore the redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

So maybe I am new at this whole thing. I am not trying to advertise anything I am actually trying to provide information strictly as is, not choosing sides. If a performing arts center is cause for deletion, then why don't you start deleting every performing center/theater there is on Wikipedia. I have searched & found many on Wikipedia. This region (Southwest Virginia) does not have a lot of information on anything; I was simply just giving information about a school that is in the area, when it was redirected because "articles about primary schools are not accepted". So I put the information about the Performing Arts Center that is in the Auditorium, and then it was flagged it for deletion because "I was advertising the center". If primary schools should not be on Wikipedia, then you need to delete EVERY school that is listed in this category Category:Elementary Schools in the United States. If mentioning the center caused the school to be marked for deletion, why can I not just delete that section? L.N.farm (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning what else there is in Wikipedia will not sway the outcome of this discussion, as we deal with one article at a time, and, well, while some others fell through the cracks, this one didn't. If the article is to be kept as anything other than a redirect, it has to be shown that its main topic meets our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for some guidance? I have information from (reliable) outside sources about the prequel history of elementary/middle schools in the town (starting in the late 1800s) that lead to the creation of the school. I also have information from outside sources about how it came to be named James Woodrow Adams School. Would this be sufficient enough to meet the guidelines? Or should I add the history of the schools to the main town’s page? Thank you for your instructions and I am sorry for the frustrations that I have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.N.farm (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be sufficient. Showing that the school itself was built in the 1800's and its building listed in the National Registry of Historic Places would be enough, though. The sources have to be non-trivial (that is, directories cannot be used to establish notability). Basically, what you're telling me here is that you have information to expand the article on the school district (not articles on each individual school), but that's about it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wise County Public Schools and Pound, Virginia. The school only educates up to middle school so doesn't merit its own page. However, some sourced factual information about the school can be added to the district article. Information about the history of the schools in the town can be added to the Pound article as can the details on the Performing Arts Center. TerriersFan (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wise County Public Schools. Without non-trivial coverage by third party WP:RS, this is a non-notable primary school. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Wikipedia's usual consensus that high schools are generally considered notable, but primary and middle schools rarely are - unless they have received a LOT of media attention. The information about the school's history, naming, etc. sounds interesting, but it should be added to the articles about the school district or the town. L.N.farm, thanks for your attempts to provide interesting material on Wikipedia; you just didn't know about WP:Notability (schools). --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Several substantial pieces of coverage specifically about the gallery itself, and multiple pieces of incidental coverage relating to exhibitions therein, appear to lead to a consensus to keep. ~ mazca ^talk 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Barn Gallery

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

Non-notable photo gallery. Originally the article was tagged for speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but then a claim of notability was made by the addition of a "notable exhibitions" section. However, the notability of the exhibition, nor of the exhibiting photographer, has not been established. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creator seems to have missed the point of what counts as notability in Wikipedia. In order for the exhibitions to be considered notable, I'd want to see evidence of notability after the event - with the two exhibition in 2009 and 2010, it's too early to tell. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article makes the big claim that 7000 people came to one exhibition; and until reliable evidence can be found for this, it merits a FACT tag. That claim aside, what's written about the place is minor and for the most part already sourced. The exhibitions listed are indeed of works by redlinked photographers, but a major reason for this is en:WP's godawful coverage of photographers (a number of photographers with Magnum have yet to have even the most perfunctory articles, so there's little hope for genuine if smaller stars in the firmament). The Red Barn Gallery is a regular partner of Polish Cultural Week (codeveloped by the Adam Mickiewicz Institute); exhibitions held in it have been written up in reliable sources. This is all we need. Unless, that is, we demand the kind of notability seen by being written up later in books -- which would handily reduce the number of list-worthy exhibitions to a mere handful; a splendid notion if your goal is to chuck virtually all photography out of en:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I looked at only 3 of the sources cited in the article. Each of them lead to a short article written about the gallery itself. Since the topic of this article has received significant, non-trivial coverage in at least 3 reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria. --Griseum (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 90's (Time-Life album)

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that this compilation is notable -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - I feel the compilation is notable. After all, it had a professional yet brief review on allmusic.com. GETONERD84 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Visibility does not equal notability. --Griseum (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every Time-Life, K-Tel, or "as seen on TV" compilation of hits is notable. The formula is usually the same: the legal department negotiates the right to use the songs, the collection is produced and advertised on a 60-second commercial or a 30-minute infomercial with a toll-free number to call, the TV station gets a percentage of the sales to persons who order from the area... and after awhile, the album is replaced by another one. Mandsford 01:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy W. Lynch

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks citations to third-party sources; no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO. --EEMIV (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to one of the Trek wikis. Memory alpha is probably a good candidate. Ray^Talk 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Some people whose work is familiar to a relatively large group of people aren't notable enough for Wikipedia because they get relatively little media attention and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This seems to be the case here as well. --Griseum (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Man Automatic. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common Ground Demo

(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☯ 22:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Siefert

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

Racing driver that has not competed in a fully-professional series. Fails WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport and WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three references, used for seven citations, came up not found. Hard to support notability, when there are only two working refs, one of which is subscription only.--SPhilbrick T 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - under 10,000 hits. T3h 1337 b0y 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's why I wrote the article: 1) He was a national champion. 2) There are 5 reliable sources in the article from 4 different sources. All are either reliable well-respected newspapers or regional/national level racing magazines. Sources were all valid when the article was written - so what if they aren't active today. That's why Wikipedia:Linkrot was written. Per the guide "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." Ghits have not been considered a reliable standard for a long time. I've never had a subscription of any kind like this, so that link must have turned into a subscription-based. So it is an article about a national champion that passes WP:GNG. Royal broil 23:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The links are still broken and while links aren't necessary, it helps to evaluate the depth of the notability. In this case, the link that is functioning, appears to me to be small scale localized coverage. I don't think it meets the ATHLETE criteria either, but some national or wider coverage could go the other way Shadowjams (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be semi-pro athlete on cusp of notability? Article requires further development and better referencing. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Thorn

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport. Only 6 starts in a regional NASCAR series. Has won no series championships. No significant media coverage. Drdisque (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor to non existent refs. Regional notability perhaps, but not to Wikipedia standards for independent coverage in reliable outside sources. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Radley, J. (1968). The origin of Arbor Low henge monument. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 88, 100-103

[2] Alcock, L. (1950). "The Henge Monument of The Bull Ring, Dove Holes, Derbyshire". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 81–86

[3] Wainwright, G.J. (1969). "A review of henge monuments in the light of recent research". Proc Prehist Soc, Vol 35 (New Series), pp 112-133. p 129.

[4] Text/Publication/Monograph: Harding and Lee, A F and G E. 1987. Henge monuments and related sites of Great Britain: air photographic evidence and catalogue. Brit Ser. 175. 372, No. 271

[5] Text/Publication/Article: Woodham, A A. 1955. 'Four henge monuments in Easter Ross', Proc Soc Antiq Scot Vol. 87 1952-3, p.72-9. Proc Soc Antiq Scot. 72-9. 72; pl. IV, 1

[6] "Henge". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.

[7] "What is a 'Henge' monument". Orkneyjar.

[8] A. Saville (1983). "Excavations at Condicote Henge Monument, Gloucestershire, 1977" (PDF). Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 101: 21–47.

[9] Colin Richards (October 1996). "Monuments as Landscape: Creating the Centre of the World in Late Neolithic Orkney". World Archaeology. 28 (2): 190–208. JSTOR 125070.

[10] Ian Shaw and Robert Jameson, ed. (2002). A dictionary of archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-23583-3.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {| width = "100%"
 |-
-! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 30|30 June]]
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 30|30 June]]
-! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 2|2 July]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 2|2 July]] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
 |}
 </div>
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iatromology}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken buck}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar ventilation}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar ventilation}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Evin}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Evin}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison "Nugget" Matasi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Mulligan}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Mulligan}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Vohwinkel}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Avery (soccer)}}<!--Relisted-->
@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitGravity}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3Crowd (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Oakey}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Oakey}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black swan story}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of san francisco rugby football club}}
@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Knox County Commission Races}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn A Campbell}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2009}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2009}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Horowitz (2nd nomination)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Horowitz (2nd nomination)}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet King}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet King}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renée Estevez}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Estevez}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Estevez}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Research Program}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinyl Soup (band)}}
@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Zeleznik}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daze}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja-Bar}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja-Bar}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Henderson}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelemvor Lyonsbane}}<!--Relisted-->
@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Towers 2}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabor Anosi}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ditchburn}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ditchburn}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Collection at Chevy Chase}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudha Pennathur}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudha Pennathur}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Yarmouth First Responders}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodrow Adams Combined School}}<!--Relisted-->