Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 31: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 7 January 2011

< 30 December	1 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Martial Association

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

How this poor article has survived so many AFD's is beyond my understanding the only third person sources available only have trivial mentions of the organisation which do little or nothing to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see little substantial mention of the AMA - it just appears in listings, mirrors of this article, and other organisations that mention an affiliation / competition in passing. I did find one adequate independent source, have added a ref to the article just in case others think it should survive... bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until keep arguments and evidence presented in the 2nd nomination are addressed. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no real claims of notability and has no independent sources. The only notability claim I see in the previous discussion is that it's a large organization and that's insufficient for notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe a case has been made that the organization is notable or that the article is reliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a brief search for sources, I did not find anything to suggest that this subject is, in itself, notable. Janggeom (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom the first time, I didn't, and still don't, see the notability. Like Bobraynor said above, listings and mentions, but nothing substantial. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Palanzo

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

A non notable martial artist who is just as unnotable as Worldwide Kenpo Karate Association the organisation founded by him. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no independent sources to support notability and I don't see how he satisfies WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for sources found little to support notability. The subject appears to head a large martial art school and to have produced some educational materials, but neither of those (in themselves) support notability as far as I'm aware. Janggeom (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication or sources to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyokushin fighters

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

A poorly defined article which is encyclopaedic and no definition on why it is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article populated mainly by non-notable (red link) fighters. I see no reason why this article is notable. Jakejr (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article probably duplicates List of karateka to a large extent. Janggeom (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of primarily non-notable individuals with no reasons given that support notability for either the list or the people on it. Papaursa (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah michelle weeks

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

17-year-old country singer, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC just yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are trivial mentions and/or unreliable, fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from talk page Not sure what the problem is. I used reliable sources and all information is verifiable. What can I do to make it better? Bigstrawhat (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC) (Peridon (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I can't see much notability yet. Plenty of time yet. When better references are available, try again. But give it a bit of time for the career to develop. Peridon (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem to have much coverage as of yet. In addition, her album was released on an obscure label called hunnybee records, and I can't find any information about it (only info on an unrelated label called HoneyBee Records). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Ten Pound Hammer. --Kudpung (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. She has had no national touring (only appearing as a local opening act), released one CD on a non-notable label, and has had coverage in local papers and nothing otherwise. The music industry is far too competitive to speculate on her future success. If she really is dying to have a Wikipedia page, tell her agent (possibly connected to the creator of this stub) to book a national tour to inlcude Los Angeles, Nashville, and New York City. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Falconer (educator)

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

Not notable, self advertising, BLP issues? no 3rd party sources. isfutile:P (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely lacking in sources, reads like a résumé. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammie Wilson

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

Uncited and little return from a search, unworthy of a wikipedia BLP Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My searches for "Tammy Wilson" and "North Pole" get less-than-reliable sources that confirm she is a state representative (enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN). A GNews search shows that she has been quoted multiple times by reliable media. I will look for better sources when I get more time. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks gene, adding north pole found me this http://house.legis.state.ak.us/rep.php?id=wlt which might be a automatic pass on politician as you say, I would more see the less noteworty ones as she seems to be, be added to a list? Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been shown to pass WP:POLITICIAN. If that guideline is to be changed then there should be a more wide-ranging discussion than a single AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bar at WP:POLITICIAN is stated as "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." That would certainly include that Alaska House.Plus, being the rep from North Pole, she obviously has ties with Santa, we don't want to end up getting a lump of coal next year. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two more refs from an independent source. For some reason the Alaska Public Radio Network rarely if ever shows up on Google, it's my go-to resource for anything Alaskan. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but do we really do investigative additions cited to radio reports? Those are external links not for support of content in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? APRN is a reliable source, they are a professional journalistic organization, and the references I found directly verify statements in the article. Frankly I don't understand your objection. Is it just because they are on the radio? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we don't listen to radio reports and add claims that we think we heard in them, the verifiability aspect for a BLP is extremely weak indeed. I accept that she has passed WP:POLITICIAN and have no desire to alter that, but she is not very notable is she really, as yet we don't have independent reports of a level to pass WP:BIO. If she didn't have this get out clause she wouldn't make it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Here's a suggestion: actually go to the online cites I provided, where you can hear streaming audio of those reports. There was no imagination involved. I never heard of Tammie Wilson before about an hour ago, I found these refs, listened to them, and found that they verified specific statements in the article. Your assumtion that I am making things up based on my imagination is very much not appreciated. Please restore this properly sourced content. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you have made it up, or that you imagined anything, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am not going to some radio report to investigate if it says whatever or not. Please find a reliable source if you want to add any content. Please take it to the RS noticeboard for open community discussion if you feel citing content to radio interviews is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, you are saying that you refuse to check to see if the source says what I claim it says because it is an audio file as opposed to text? Nonsense. APRN is a reliable source, I have cited them probably over a hundred times on various Alaska-related articles and it has never been a problem before. They are every bit as reliable as a newspaper and I am frankly baffled by your assertion that they are not. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted meets relevant criteria by election to state legislature.--Misarxist 10:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Rob for restoring the sourced content. Since comments ( I accept that she has passed WP:POLITICIAN) above indicate that you accept that policy supports keeping this article, perhaps the nomination could be withdrawn as well as it appears we have met the conditions for a speedy keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, happy with the improvements and happy to withdraw the nomination and accept the speedy keep. Just as a note - I found this article by pressing the Wikipedia:URBLP - blp button and it had been uncited since its creation over a year ago, I found nothing to support notability in a simple google name search and as such nominated it for AFD discussion. I am happy its notability has been established and the article as such, has been greatly improved.Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (BLP was uncited for four years but has now been cited and as such notability has now been established). (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Enrique Polanco

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

not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books turns up multiple examples, in English and Spanish, of him being described as an important Peruvian artist. Examples:[1][2][3][4][5]--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable Peruvian artist. An article published by Terra Networks [6] says: Polanco, 50, is considered one of the greatest exponents of the Peruvian painting. I've added more sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:Arxiloxos.Hillcountries (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Damon and Naomi. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Yang

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

no assertion of wikipedia note Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google News search yields 155 hits for "Naomi Yang", primarily (but not exclusively) in connection with her notable bands Galaxie 500 and Damon and Naomi.[7] Lots of hits at Google Books, too[8]; examples:[9][10][11][12] Per WP:MUSIC, "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article" and I'd say the evidence here is that she is. Having said that, it might be editorially sound to redirect and merge the minimal content of this article to one or the other of those band articles until there is more content about her, specifically.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Damon & Naomi. Not enough content for a separate article.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Damon & Naomi. Insufficiently sourced and not enough content.--Kudpung (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damon & Naomi - in agreement with the last two votes, though I don't think there's really anything to merge. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Keep, nomination withdrawn as sources were found and inserted into the article (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 04:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Grace González

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

After four years there is nothing in the article to support wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former Señorita México (national beauty queen of Mexico) and for the last six years host of a Univision talk show. As sources, I added a couple of interviews in Spanish-language papers, plus (to comfort the monolingual) an English-language Univision press release. The article needs additional sources and/or judicious editing, but I think her notability is now reasonably verified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements, I did have a look for sources but didn't see any. I agree, you have asserted a degree of notability and found a few sources that verifys some of the claims. I wouldn't object to having this closed as speedy keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G2. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enneagram of Personality/FAQ

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

Not sure what the point of this is - looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G2 test page, content fork, no context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:00, 31 December 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 Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Kids' Choice Awards

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

Although I'm pretty sure there is going to be a 2011 Kids' Choice Awards (with probably many of the categories listed), it's still far too soon for this article. Nowhere could I find proof that the host is going to be Ryan Reynolds, nor can I even find the airdate for the show. In addition, the entire "events within the show" section is hijacked from the 2010 Kids' Choice Awards article. My !vote is to incubate. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, where did that logo come from? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon indeed. Logo may be a hoax creation Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable awards ceremony, but I agree on removing the section "events within the show." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeEonBmbo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards until such time that reliable secondary sources can be used to recreate the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect The ceremony will take place, but there are zero sources for a venue right now and there is no way that MS Paint monstrosity is the official logo (which seems to have been made up by someone on YouTube who has one of their buddies paste it here). Also, the actual nominations aren't done until March, and the last line about a dance-off between cartoon characters which seems to have already taken place is complete made-up bull. Wait until at the very least, a date and venue has been announced by the network itself. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards per WP:CRYSTAL. JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out that the initial creator's username is Tehetehe2011. With a name like that it's not to hard to believe he/she will create a hoax page. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That user isn't the issue; they just put up a basic template with what they probably assumed from their friends was the true logo and placeholder information. It's intervening IP users who added all the crap about supposed nominees and the incomprehensible dance-off. So this is not a referendum on the originating editor, who only has one contrib here. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Anything

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

WP:NOTABILITY - references are almost exclusively press releases from Auto Anything or their business partners. Google search quickly falls into a morass of coupon and discount-code sites. Tagged for notability since July. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no demonstration that this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a bit spammy, and there is no coverage in reliable sources. The references at the time I reviewed the article consists entirely of non-independent sources, mostly press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just not notable. Dewritech (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hozro

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed by author of the article. ttonyb (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you haven't read the whole text. It is more than just a word of a dictionary, it is a philosophy. Hozro is the core of Navajo medicine. Please don't bother people at work. -- Le Jardin d'Hozro (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Interesting that Navajo_people#Healing_and_spiritual_practices section fails to reach this conclusion. Perhaps Hozro should be combined with that article. ttonyb (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page says:

"The origin of spiritual healing ceremonies dates back to Navajo mythology. It is said the first Enemy Way ceremony was performed for Changing Woman's twin sons (Monster Slayer and Born-For-the-Water) after slaying the Giants (the Yé'ii) and restoring Hozhó to the world and people."

Comment: Read more, quack less -- Le Jardin d'Hozro (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My apologies, I did miss that. ttonyb (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – After rethinking this nomination and in spite of the WP:UNCIVIL responses to my comments, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. My apologies for perhaps jumping the gun on the nomination. ttonyb (talk) 18:41, 31 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental Features, LLC

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

This is a film production company that has so far produced one film (Stacy's Mom), which was released but not released through theatres. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources of the film, the company or the key people in the company. I can't see anything here that meets notability guidelines. Beloved Freak 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:CORP and an article about this company being premature. AND also for being writen in a promotional tone... though this last might otherwise have been addressable had sources toward notability actually been available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per foregoing. It can always be rewritten if ever it becomes notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge No one's protested the merge after a week so I'm closing. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Glimmering

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

Non-notable album has never charted. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Rednevog (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chavez (band), particularly the Discography section. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The band's other two albums also recently went through the AfD process and the verdict was to merge to the band article. Even though this particular AfD has not yet been closed, the result will probably be the same and I have completed a merge/redirect. This can be reversed if anyone else votes differently. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 17:54, 31 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Efron

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

Individual has no notability beyond being the brother of someone notable. BOVINEBOY2008 15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fast as possible due to WP:BLP violations. Incoherent article about person with no clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, and family members of notable persons must pass notability muster on their own. Additionally, clear BLP concerns as per Metro's comments above. This is a borderline speedy deletion candidate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've deleted the unsourced personal stuff, but there is nothing there that indicates notability even if it was sourced. Notability isn't inherited, despite his extensive entourage. --Beloved Freak 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:24, 31 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windjammers (musical ensemble)

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

No indications that this ensemble meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Took a bit of time to check GNews for sourcing. There are a number of articles on various ensembles called "Windjammers," (one from South Florida, another with some affiliation with the Coast Guard, etc.) but I couldn't actually find any covering this ensemble in particular. The existing sourcing in the article clearly falls short of establishing notability. Happy to change my vote if anybody else has better luck finding good sourcing -- there's a lot of content in the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author User talk:Davidtbrown has been notified but hasn't commented (yet). It would be a shame if this article which appears to be about a notable band, gets deleted for lack of sources, but sadly, those are the rules. --Kudpung (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perilously close to a CSD G11. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage about this ensemble appears to be entirely local to the Waterloo area (see this google news search: [13]) coming from the Waterloo Region Record. I can find no reliable sources providing critical reviews of their sole album, Swingphonic. Note that the Auidophilia review in the article is by David T Brown, which is also likely the creator of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established with verifiable, third party sources. Seaphoto^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Currie

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

No indications that this biography meets the criteria for inclusion. Currie is a band-leader and musician who has achieved no great recognition. Awards listed amount to school awards (outstanding extracurricular participation and the like), local arts group recognition or (in the case of the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal) a mere recognition of 5 years' service to the armed services or emergency services. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Only the UK version of the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal was "a mere recognition of 5 years' service to the armed services or emergency services". The Canadian version of the medal was awarded to "Canadians who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, their community or to Canada over the previous fifty years." This seems like a significant award.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply According to the Canadian government's description of the medal,

Agencies of government at the federal, provincial and local levels were invited to propose candidates, as were national organizations in every important field of endeavour including the professions, education and arts, veterans’ groups, sports associations, philanthropic and charitable bodies, and welfare services.

To me, this sounds like a fairly broad criterion for award, and in itself does not confer notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a list of who can propose candidates for the award, not who can actually confer it, so is irrelevant to the issue of whether this is a notability-conferring award. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is another very detailed article by the same author of Windjammers which. None of the cited sources seem to add up to notability, but I can't find any others.--Kudpung (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. University newspaper articles are insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established through reliable third party sources. It appears that subject has been editing his own article as well. Seaphoto^Talk 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of elementary schools in ISD 196. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge Elementary

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

Disputed WP:PROD. Original prod reason was "Non notable Elementary school. Can be sufficiently covered in the existing School District article." Nancy ^talk 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Most gNews results are for other Oak Ridge schools, and this search yields very little. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close & Redirect to Eagan, Minnesota. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article about the school district or locality, as has been past practice for hundreds of similar articles about elementary schools per WP:WPSCH. This does not need an AfD debate. Kudpung (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I can't find evidence of notability. At this time, the best redirect target would be List of elementary schools in ISD 196. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 20:32, 5 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rafhan Maize" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.rafhanmaize.com/) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafhan Maize

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

Non-notable company as per required by Wikipedia Notability Policy BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It gets a few hits of Google news, mostly stock market information though. Google books gets even more. It does seem to be quite a large company. I don't know what the policy with these things is, though. Nightw 12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search demonstrates clear notability, starting with this source. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this was my thinking also. Nightw 05:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That ref doesn't come close to the standard required for inclusion at WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the standard does it not meet? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I have seen so far is one ref with a brief mention. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was two pages of coverage, including "Rafhan Maize Products operates the most notable private sector maize research effort in Pakistan", a brief mention? There's plenty more coverage in just that one book (click "view all"), and in the many more books found by clicking on the search links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have more refs then by all means add them to the article and I will be very happy to change my delete to a keep and we can probably wrap this AfD up quickly then. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't run an edit-on-demand service. I'll improve the article if and when, as a volunteer, I decide to. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then well let's let the AfD run and see what the consensus is, then. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time-being, there is evidence that the company exists. Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The standard for keeping an article on a company is not that the company exists, but that that it meets the standard required for inclusion at WP:CORP "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

37 hits on Google scholar, 169 hits on Google books, 239 hits on Google news. We're hardly relying on a "single independent source". I'd say the article obviously needs expanding, but that's not a reason for deletion. Notability seems to be quite obviously met. Nightw 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [14]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the article has now been speedily deleted as a copyright violation I think this AfD can be wrapped up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator seems to not understand WP:N. Leaving note on his talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Khan

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

NOn-notable person as required by the Wikipedia Notability Policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs better references to comply with BLP standards, but notability seems to be established. --Soman (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rubber-stamp Keep The nominator has clearly got his argument flawed here. How can one of the country's most notable actresses and television anchors fail notability? Mar4d (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator seems to not understand WP:N. Leaving note on his talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaista Wahidi

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

Non notable person as required by Wikipedia Notability Policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unreferenced passages should be removed per BLP, but being a host of major television shows indicate notability. --Soman (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are a couple more sources to add to those already referenced in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't nominate pages until you fully understand and read what WP:N really means first. Mar4d (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Peace Festival

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

Not covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as required by WP:Notable. As a result the information in the article is incomplete and inaccurate. Borock (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. Throw enough cash at an idea and you're bound to get a few celebrities and a (very) few column inches, but as Borock states, no coverage in any depth. No reason to consider this to be anything but yet another Unification Church vanity exercise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we care whether the events are a vanity exercise? That's irrelevant to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. The only thing that we should care about is whether the events are properly and thoroughly documented outwith the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Why"? Depth. Of. Coverage. Vanity exercises typically get very superficial coverage. Celebrity/politician gives a speech full of platitudes, newspapers give them brief coverage because they're famous, and everybody forgets them the next day. Having dealt with UC articles for a while, I've seen this over and over -- UC creates an organisation, generally with "International" "Peace" and/or "Family" in its name, it garners a few superficial news reports while the money-hose is turned on, but evaporates as soon as the money-hose is directed elsewhere. We've a whole graveyard of them at List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a passing mention of this, that doesn't really say much about the subject at hand, in a biography of Jose de Venecia, Jr., but, otherwise, little that I can turn up in books. If these events have made it from the newspapers into the history books, I haven't yet found any evidence of that. I notice that the article, whose current state is very different to its state in earlier years after some talk page concerns were addressed from 2008 onwards, is largely now supported by multiple news articles that appear at first glance to be independent of the subject. Why is the government of the Philippines described as an unreliable source for the simple fact of the authorship of a song, by the way? Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a press release, and press releases are generally considered a less-than-reliable source -- being more about spin than substance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't really answer the question, though. Let me emphasize an important part: Why is the government of the Philippines described as an unreliable source for the simple fact of the authorship of a song? What reason is there to think that the government of the Philippines is not factually reporting a song's authorship credit? Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the source is not simply claiming "the simple fact of the authorship of a song" -- it is also claiming that it is "the GPF theme song", which may well be an exaggeration of its status -- particularly given the PR piece's exaggerated claim that it "has become popular worldwide." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show that the events are notable, and considered important in some places -- although not by the American press it seems. Part of the problem that Borock was alluding to in the nomination is that at one time the GPF was sponsored by the Unification Church (of which I am a member) but is now run by a break-away group that no longer uses the name "Unification Church" or consider themselves a part of it. Probably a good article has to await better coverage in the news media, or in books. However deleting the article as it is, which seems to be fairly neutral and sourced as well as can be expected, would be a step backwards. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve: do you have any WP:RS evidence for this "break-away"? And if the UC isn't footing the bill for these conferences/festivals, then who is? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article in Forbes discusses it, although it doesn't mention the GPF: http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0412/enterprise-moon-sun-myung-spiritual-unification-world-revival.html -Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, what the article says is that "Yet the stirrings in Korea find this dynamic duo at odds with an older brother in the U.S., Hyun-Jin, whose Unification Church International (UCI) operation there has grown removed from them and, it would seem, from their father. UCI apparently is not donating funds into the American branch of the church, led by sister In-Jin, 44." Given Hyun Jin Moon is chairman of the Global Peace Festival Foundation, it seems that it is not the GPF that is breaking away from the UC, but rather that the international branch of the UC (including the GPF) is drifting away from the American branch, the Korean branch and the Korean commercial interests. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was giving you "inside information," not yet covered by the media. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you were giving me "Original Research" -- hence my earlier request for "WP:RS evidence". (As an aside, my general impression is that most of the UC's money comes from its Asian congregations, not its American ones or its business interests -- making the effects of any split interesting to say the least.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The church community is going through great changes, but you are right that WP has to wait till that is reported in "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to attest to notability. In particular this article treats the subject in some depth. Neither incompleteness nor inaccuracy is a justification for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International media coverage seems to establish notability. Anyway WP's job is to give information that has been published, even if that is incomplete. Inaccurate information could be left out if that is a problem. Wolfview (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry but the delete !voters make a stronger case in this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springbank Cemetery Aberdeen

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

no indication of WP:notability. Sources prove existence - not notability. Google searches do not reveal anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:notable about it? You have added a couple of references to someone buried at the cemetery but the second one does not appear to mention the cemetery and the first only mentions it in passing. The claims made seem to be no different from hundreds of other cemeteries in the UK. noq (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be quite a typical cemetery. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanhill is a "typical" railway station. Are you going to nominate that article for deletion too? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - until someone can prove that our much-celebrated one-millionth article - Jordanhill Railway Station - is "notable", I take these "notability" disputes with an immense pinch of salt. Inconsistency, thy name is Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your basis is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?noq (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-lawyering also leaves me profoundly unimpressed. And wp:otherstuffexists is not even policy, it is just an essay. Let's face it, Wikipedia is packed full of articles about "typical" cemteries, "typical" railway stations, "typical" biochemists, and "typical" lichens. So what? As long as it is decently referenced, I care not a jot. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the decent references? The first reference to google books shows a one line mention - hardly significant coverage, and the second reference does not mention it all. noq (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almanac and gazetteer entries like railway stations, cemeteries, species, cities, and high school appear to have a quasi inherent notability based on outcomes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, the other article you talk about does not appear to have been discussed for deletion. noq (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, feel free to nominate it. I look forward to that AFD! --Mais oui! (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden would be on you, not him, as you are the one who seems to have an issue with it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Death, and Talk:Commonwealth War Graves Commission.--Mais oui! (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability claim, not reliably sourced. If this changes during the AFD, feel free to ping. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the Commonwealth_War_Dead context as a distinct notability - as well as most cemeteries - however mundane or common for the average Afd punter - actually happen to be sufficiently notable in the WP:DEATH project - cheers Satu Suro 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to lack any notability or significance. I'm really not swayed by the flamboyant WP:WAX vote for keeping, as the article completely fails the GNG (sources only prove that it exists and houses war dead). bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed do not grant any notability, and a Google Books search turns up only passing references along the lines of "he died and was buried in Springbank Cemetery." Google search turns up only directory-type listings and Google News finds nothing. I could find nothing at WP:DEATH about the notability (or not) of graveyards. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Loved (EP)

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

Not notable, no references Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No source to verify its existence. Not notable. Novice7 | Talk 09:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retailer-exclusive EP for which no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:58, 31 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Stitzel

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

Doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. (The 14th all time is for his school, not overall) JaGa^talk 09:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Plus, text seems to be lifted from http://www.ovguide.com/casey-stitzel-9202a8c04000641f8000000016b4b591# (which is not a reliable source anyway). Wickedjacob (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickedjacob. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi characters. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane McKay

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

Completely unsourced, this Degrassi related article has no sources or citations or third party coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 08:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you want all Degrassi character articles deleted. It is like all the others, which gets its info from the TV series. 117Avenue (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three citations. Ng.j (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Degrassi characters. This is a prime example of fancruft and extreme minutia. This minor character's history should be summarized in no more than 3 to 5 sentences. PK T(alk) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Ng.j (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck; you have already expressed a "keep" opinion above. Sandstein 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Degrassi characters per ~~WP:Pokémon test~~ WP:NFICT. The three sources are insufficient to establish notability (due to lack of independence or reliability or depth of coverage): one derivative guidebook, one is from a not reliable website, and the third, and interview with a passing mention of the character.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have sufficient citations to continue development. Mathewignash (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number/quality of existing citations isn't relevant. He's a fictional character and of minor importance to the series, therefore there shouldn't be an article. PK T(alk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of Degrassi characters. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list. None of the sources actually address the character in any great detail and I couldn't find anything else by searching, so he would appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFICT on his own. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But There's More Petz

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

Looks like a hoax. No references, created by a suspected WP:SOCK, all related search results are Wikipedia and mirror sites. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:39, 31 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiuku AFC

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

Semi-professional, little coverage, does not meet WP:CLUB Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete – Yes. No coverage at all. Novice7 | Talk 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this team competes at a high enough level to qualify for the NZ National Cup competition, and is therefore notable by WP:FOOTBALL's standards. Giant Snowman 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless of course all teams in the Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 2 league will be deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman. matt91486 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third level of NZ pyramid - semi-professional. Can't see why we would delete it. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Oliva Meza

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

From a google search, I cannot find anything showing him to be a notable public official. I do not know of any other sources that would show anything notable about him. I also have concerns about verifiability, the article does not even have a date or place of birth for him. Metaphorazine (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reliable sources can be found. Article states he was mayor of Veracruz, a city of 444,000 people. If true, he meets our notability standard for politicians. It would be good if a Spanish speaking editor could look for sources. It is possible that Veracruz newspapers from the 1990s are not available through Google News Archives. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website of a Veracruz publication (newspaper?) called Elgolfo.info described him on February 5, 2010, as a "distinguished entrepeneur from the radio industry" according to a Google translation. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I'm not intimately familiar with the notability criteria for politicians, but from the page on biographies of living persons I thought it wasn't enough simply to have been an elected member to satisfy notability. I have posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mexico, perhaps members of this project could bring forward some sources? Metaphorazine (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians states "Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion". --Soman (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems we have possible 2 different ppl with the same name. The article initially talked about a political figure in the 1930s. http://www.veracruz.contralinea.com.mx/archivo/2005/enero/html/prensa.htm mentions him as a member of the Veracruz Legislative (and thus notable, "who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"). --Soman (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Yes, there are 2 persons with same name, both members of the Veracruz legislative~~, http://www.legisver.gob.mx/gaceta/gacetaLX/GACETA023.pdf . Googling problem solved if second last name is spellt "Mesa". --Soman (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alyans

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

Hoax about a supposed stadium that doesn't seem to meet speedy criteria. Wikipedia and mirrors are the only Ghits that use "Alyans" and "Mozambique" in the same context. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even bother notifying the creator because s/he made the article in April 2008 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturenga. I'd be inclined to similarly nominate most articles created by this user, although they may not be hoaxes, they appear not to be verifiable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pontificalibus. Special:Contributions/Kanareii is a list of all articles created by this user that have not been deleted. --Banana (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax. Giant Snowman 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - mentioned here Spiderone 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a copy of Wikipedia, not an actual book. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now delete Spiderone 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this mentions some stadia in Mozam. Also mentions Katdarra and Matchedje Arena which seems to clear their names as I was going to AfD them too. I will strike my keep and Afd the others if this is proved wrong too. Spiderone 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a copy of Wikipedia - you can usually tell by the cover and the title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just bundled three more articles from the same editor, with the same problem. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you can include the others in this discussion because of the time factor; this discussion has been going on for nearly a week and is ready to be closed, while the others are newly listed and need a week to run. I suggest Delete the current one, and relist the others as a new AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were already listed at a seperate AfD that Erpert closed in order to list them all here - I think these edits should be reverted and kept in 2 seperate AfDs. Giant Snowman 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, GiantSnowman, please read what I wrote here. I even stated directly above why I did this (and it has nothing to do with a time factor). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUNDLE - "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion." Giant Snowman 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inappropriate bundling. Articles at AfD get seven days, so these AfDs need to be kept separate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of these stadiums appear at worldstadium's Stadiums in Mozambique page. Although Alyans and Lektaforga are mentioned in the Barnes & Noble link, it's unclear as to what they are exactly and without buying that book it's impossible to tell whether these article tie in with what's in the book. At present, all of these are unverifiable and all have a lack of independent sources (almost entirely Wiki mirrors). Bettia (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that the debate has moved back, can it be transferred here? Spiderone 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Christianity

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

Violates WP:No original research. Sources do not establish that there is such a thing as "postmodern Christianity" and mostly do not use the expression. Article is divided into sections about various aspects of modern Christianity, but OR is used to say that taken together these things add up to "postmodern Christianity." Wolfview (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is poor, but the topic is a worthy one. The term has been around for a while and is easily found in various sources. Hopefully an interested party can improve it. Wickedjacob (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a kind of SYNTHESIS of various articles. People might talk about postmodern Christianity refering to Christianity they happen to describe as postmodern, but there aren't many sources discussing Postmodern Christianity as an entity. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This would appear to be a content dispute instead of a notability dispute. Proverbs 6:6 --Shirt58 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about content. The subject is not notable. And what has Proverbs 6:6 got to do with it? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why is this being proposed for deletion at the same time as postmodern religion - see next afd below. This links to the subcategory postmodern religion also being proposed for deletion - which links to philosophy - postmodernism and religion
You can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism

--Kary247 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC).--Kary247 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use more and better sources, the {{refimprove}} tag was only added today. No reason to delete it yet. YardsGreen (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to have tags on articles for any length of time before deleting them. People can look for sources right now. I did and didn't find significant coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no sources that support that any of the included forms of Christianity have ever been referred to, individually or collectively, as "Postmodern Christianity". The writer of this essay is projecting Postmodernity onto these forms and philosophies, or at least has failed to provide sources to support the whole edifice. Yworo (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ISBN 9781563383649 is a book with this exact title from an academic publisher. If the topic can support a 174-page book then it can certainly support an encyclopedia article. Plenty more books and peer-reviewed articles about the subject can be found by simply following the search links spoon-fed in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. as said before it is a content issue, 2. the topic and term exist in the literature and in theological debates really (actually, factually, against all reason etc.), although both are malformed, but that's not the article's fault. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern religion

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

Violates WP:No original research by putting together odds and ends to create a general topic. None of the sources seem to use the expression "postmodern religion," but use the word "postmodern" (and sometimes not even that) in connection with some religious issue. Wolfview (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the origins of this article in Postmodern Wicca (AfD discussion), whose AFD discussion is relevant reading. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we can have postmodern art, postmodern music, postmodern architect., postmodern psychology, postmodern film etc it would seem to be a bit odd and unfair to argue that we can't also have postmodern religion. You can't just exclude or marginalise religion from the subject of postmodernism.

(Also, why is postmodern Christianity being proposed for deletion at the same time as postmodern religion - this article has been around for ages?)

Postmodern religion, Postmodern Christianity and Postmodern Buddhism are all simultaneously being nominated for deletion, again you can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism.

- Please consider whether your article for deletion suggestions are being very inclusive, because postmodern religion is a wonderful topic and I can't see how the research is original I personally have found over 50 sources and they are from University of California, Harvard, Yale and very notable philosophers. Also, I have worked very hard trying to take a difficult and hard to understand topic and make it easy for the average reader to understand so it is a bit mean to just place the article here for deletion without even trying to improve it or work on it. Here is the article I have written in tact, because it keeps getting edited. this section. (Also, the sources are valid and relevant - so this article can be expanded to consider many different religions and there are many books about many other religions that postmodern religion could expand on, for example, Postmodern Judaism see here)

^ Powell, Jim (1998). Postmodernism For Beginners. ISBN 978-1-934389-09-6
^ "Postmodernism." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Ed. Ray Abruzzi and Michael J. McGandy. Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 27 Dec, 2010
^ Patton, K.; Ray, B. (2008). A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age. University of California Press, Berkeley - "a postmodern study of religion" p199
^ French, Rebecca Redwood (Spring 1999). "From Yoder to Yoda: Models of Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Religion in U.S. Constitutional Law". Arizona Law Review 41:49: (abstract). "Based on an analysis of the actual language used by the Supreme Court to characterize religion, this Article argues that the Court takes a common-sensical approach to each religion brought before it.".
^ Oxford University Press - Journals - Aaron Stuvland http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/12/jcs.csq055.extract
^ On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture (Atlanta: Scholars Press of American Academy of Religion, 1997; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-7885-0295-6, cloth, ISBN 0-7885-0296-4, pbk
^ a b Clarke, Peter (2009). The Oxford Handbook of the sociology of religion. Oxford University Press. Page 306.
^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (First published New York: Basic Books, 1963; New York: Anchor Books Ed., 1967), 324.
^ Eve, Raymond. "Wiccans vs. Creationists: An Empirical Study of How Two Systems of Belief Differ". The University of Texas. [1]
^ BBC Religions: Postmodernism http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
^ Hatcher, B. (1999). Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse. Oxford University Press USA.
^ a b Lewis, James (1996). Magic religion and Modern Witchcraft. New York University Press. Page 46: "While pre-modern themes form the foundation for this movement it is the manner that such themes are reworked to be appropriate in the contemporary context that form the greatest relevance to the significance of Witchcraft as a postmodern form of spirituality".
^ Winston Churchill Quote
^ Creative Quotes
^ Patton, K.; Ray, B. (2008). A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age. University of California Press, Berkeley - p132
^ Heelas, Paul (1998) Religion, modernity, and postmodernity - page 4 and 5
^ Raphael, Melissa (April 1998). "Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities", ‌Nova Religion, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pages 198–215 (abstract can be found at: [2]

"This paper argues that Jewish Goddess feminism illustrates the complexity of alternative religious identities and their fluid, ambiguous, and sometimes intimate historical, cultural, and religious connections to mainstream religious identities. While Jewish Goddess feminists find contemporary Judaism theologically and politically problematic, thealogy (feminist discourse on the Goddess and the divinity of femaleness) can offer them precisely the sacralization of female generativity that mainstream Judaism cannot."

^ Patricia M. Mcdonough, Peter Mclaren (1996). "Postmodern Studies of Gay and Lesbian Lives in Academia", Harvard Educational Review, Summer 1996 Issue
^ Riggs, J. (2003). Postmodern Christianity: Doing Theology in the Contemporary World - ix-x
^ Lewis, James (1996). Magic religion and Modern Witchcraft. New York University Press. Page 46, "... While premodern themes form the foundation for this movement it is the manner that such themes are reworked to be appropriate in the contemporary context that form the greatest relevance to the significance of Witchcraft as a postmodern form of spirituality."
^ Smith, Diane. Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies
^ Patridge, Christopher. "Alternative Spiritualities, New Religions, and the Reenchantment of the West", in James Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (2004)
^ Anderson, Walter Truett. "Four Ways to Be Absolutely Right", in Anderson (ed.), The Truth About the Truth: De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern World (1995)
^ Fisher, Amber. Journal of Western Mystery Tradition, Vol. 1. [3]
^ Raphael, Melissa (April 1998). "Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities", ‌Nova Religion, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 198–215
^ Werner, Michael. "Ecofeminism, Neopaganism, and the Gaia Movement in the Postmodern Age", Humanism Today, vol. 7 (1992)
^ Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. “Witches of the West: Neopaganism and Goddess Worship as Enlightenment Religions”, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, vol. 5, no. 1 (1989)

--Kary247 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the fact we have other "postmodern" articles is not relevant. I happen to think a few of those should be deleted as well. Secondly, the sources you list here are really not specifically about "postmodern religion".--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search seems to show that there are legitimate sources for "postmodern religion." If the sources in the article are insufficient, I see that as a reason to add a {{refimprove}} tag for now, rather than deleting the article outright. YardsGreen (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you add the sources, because I certainly can't see them? Adding tags isn't a solution to anything. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PGL states that WP:AfD is appropriate if an article has one of the listed issues "and cannot likely be improved." Considering that the page was created only about two weeks ago, and no attempt was made to discuss the problems on the talk page, I believe outright deletion is premature. Consider WP:CHANCE. You are right that adding tags is not a solution, but it would encourage discussion. If it fails to encourage discussion after some time, that may be the appropriate time to delete the article. YardsGreen (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not even mentioned in Religion. If it becomes a sizeable section within that article, then we can consider splitting off a seperate one. Right now it doesn't need it's own article. I am struggling to find sources that even define it is a concept. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will stop struggling if you simply click on the word "books" in the nomination statement. Those links are provided to enable people commenting in discussions to give at least partially informed opinions, so why not use them? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Links from books above as mentioned by Phil Bridger convince me, regardless of any criticisms of the article as it currently stands. I think this article could probably stay while the other examples of postmodern religions are no-hopers. Incidentally, I don't think the existence of Postmodern psychology i a good argument for keeping this article - looks ripe for an AfD itself! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil and Kim. Yworo (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging or renaming can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:No original research. There is nothing to say that the many people in history who have "claimed to be Jesus" form a notable group. Many people on the page actually did not claim that, but something else such as to be God himself, to be the second Messiah, to be especially inspired by Jesus, or something else. The article also has an unneutral tone in favor the Christian religion over others. Wolfview (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is not even about what the title claims. The first sentence says: "This is a list of notable people who have made statements claiming to be the reincarnation or incarnation of Jesus Christ, or the Second Coming of Christ from Heaven in some aspect." Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How has this article got an "un-neutral tone"? Please explain with specifics. I hope that the reason is more than "It discusses a subject that is intimately related to Christianity, and so of course focuses upon Christianity more than, say, Zoroastrianism.". And if you're going to argue that claiming to be the Christ is not the same as claiming to be God, or the son of God, then you're straying into the territory of a very fine point of Christian theology indeed, wearing hobnail boots. So the first sentence clarifies details of scope where the title would be incredibly unwieldy if it were to include every single aspect of what has been covered by some two millennia of thought, but for which the title is a reasonable, common name, simplification. How is that a reason for deletion?
And if Phyllis G. Jestice can have an article discussing people claming to be the Messiah, including Solomon Molcho, David Reuveni, and Nahman of Bratslav, and people claiming to be (or claimed by others to be) the second coming of Christ, including Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, and John of Kronstadt, in an encyclopaedia (Jestice 2004), why cannot this encyclopaedia? Is Wikipedia to be less of an encyclopaedia than other encyclopaedias? Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jestice, Phyllis G. (2004). "Messiahs". In Jestice, Phyllis G. (ed.). Holy people of the world: a cross-cultural encyclopedia. Vol. 3. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576073551.
Rename to "Messiah claimants" if that is the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article already exists. List of messiah claimants. Editor2020 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then merge the two lists? I expect that most of the people will be on both. I'm not sure if you can claim to be Jesus without also claiming to be the Messiah. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the cart before the horse. It's possible to claim to be the Messiah without claiming to be Jesus. So not all Messiah clamiants are claiming to be Jesus. Jestice 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJestice2004 (help) does, in fact, explain this. Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - But are all people claiming to be Jesus also claiming to be the Messiah? If so then this article could be merged into the other without losing any information, or repeating the same information in two lists. Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think that the two articles should be merged. Doing so would either strip a massive amount of information from the "Jesus" list or turn the well-balanced "Messiah" list into a mostly Christian list. Besides, "Messiah" is a very nebulous concept that is defined differently by many groups who also believe that Jesus was that Messiah. While I do not know whether anyone on the list claimed to be Jesus but claimed not to be Messiah, it is certainly possible that someone has or will make that claim. YardsGreen (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom makes four arguments for deletion; I don't believe any of the four arguments apply. First, if other encyclopedias have covered this topic, as Uncle G says, then it is not necessarily WP:OR. Second, the subject is notable, for the same reason. Third, while I agree that not everyone in the list explicitly claimed to be Jesus Christ, this is a reason to remove these people from the list rather than delete the list in its entirety. Finally, I disagree that the article has an unneutral tone, but if nom believes this, the appropriate course of action would be to add the appropriate NPOV tag and perhaps discuss the article's neutrality on its talk page. YardsGreen (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept I will certainly follow your advice. I have found that it's bad to remove informtion from an article after nominating it for deletion. One thing I didn't mention is the section on the young man who had been given the first and middle names "Jesus" and "Christ" by his parents. The millions of men in Hispanic cultures also named "Jesus" are ignored. Wolfview (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I notice that List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ redirects to the article under consideration. Perhaps it would be better to redirect the "Jesus" list to "Jesus Christ" instead? (Assuming that the article is kept.) YardsGreen (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "People who have claimed to be Christ"? Most of the people listed do not claim to be Jesus himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Christ" is just a title, and IIRC, is actually just the Greek word for "Messiah". As you note, claiming to be Jesus Christ is different from claiming to be Christ; those who claimed to be Christ but not Jesus can be added to the "Messiah" article mentioned above. Assuming the article is kept, we can clean it up later. YardsGreen (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets every requirement for a Wikipedia list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "List of People who have claimed to be the Messiah", or something along those lines.. not all have claimed to be Jesus Christ, and even in the biblical days other people claimed to be the messiah. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list is a navigation aid, and does not have to be notable in itself. What counts is that a) readers may be interested in the list b) qualification for inclusion is implied by the title and is clearly defined and c) all entries are either sourced or have blue links to articles that are sourced. This article needs clean-up to meet these criteria. Some entries should be fixed or deleted, the section on "Claimants to being Christ/Messiah, but not Jesus" should be merged into List of messiah claimants. I will do this. "Claimants for being siblings of Jesus" and "People named Jesus Christ" can be dropped, since they each have just one blue-link entry. I will do this too. But the list is essentially valid. ~~I suspect the repeated attempts to delete are due to dislike of the idea that anyone would claim to be Jesus. Not a good reason to delete.~~ Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, where are those criteria from? I only ask because WP:N has a relatively new (and still under discussion) section on the notability of lists that has different criteria. As for why the article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, the nominators don't seem to be Christian protectionists. All three nominations include reasons that, if anything, indicate the opposite is true. But I see no reason not to WP:AGF with the nominations. YardsGreen (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have assumed good faith - have struck that comment. I remember those criteria from a lengthy discussion on "silly lists" (such as "List of tall people") some time ago, which I can't find now. They seem fairly obvious. This article did not comply with b) but could be fixed to comply. WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE both mention lists of people, but have nothing to say about notability of the list itself, just of the entries in the list. There are a great many lists in Wikipedia which serve as navigation aids, or encourage readers to browse. This seems like one of them. The rule at WP:N seems new, and could affect many other lists with (to me) much less inherent interest and cohesion. For example, the people in a list of graduates from a given college probably do not have a great deal in common, but readers may still be interested in seeing who graduated from that college. The concept of "Messiah claimant" is notable, but most discussion of the concept in books is about the period around the time of Christ, while these list entries are much later. For that reason I would prefer to keep this list stand-alone. A discussion on merging into List of messiah claimants could be done post-AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

See boxes at right. Quite likely the subject of claims to be Christ is notable in itself, distinct from "messiah claimant". I do not see any books that treat it as their sole topic, but several seem to discuss the concept at some length. Maybe the intro to this article could be expanded to demonstrate notability of the list itself. It does not seem necessary to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is useful as a reference point. Sure anybody could claim to be Jesus reincarnated but such a statements has such relevance to the Christian world, even if they are fabricated.. As long as those listed are widely covered in reliable publications its OK I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This clearly a notable topic. That it is not WP:OR is clearly shown by the number of citations from other sources. I oppose merger with the list of messiah claimants: there is an overlap, but they are different. It is possible that the article needs to be purged. For example, Rastifarians make claims for the Emperor Haile Selassi I as a reincarnation of Jesus (or something of the sort), but he himself was a Christian of the Ethiopian church and would presumably have disclaimed any such status. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging this with the list of Messiah claimants is a bad idea: Simon bar Kokhba is one of the most important Messiah claimants in history, but he most definitely didn't claim to be Jesus. There are plenty of less famous Messiah claimants who also didn't claim to be Jesus. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a case for merging this list into List of messiah claimants, since anyone claiming to be Jesus Christ presumably also claims to be a messiah. The list of messiah claimants is broken into categories (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Other), and the Christian category could in turn be broken into claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ (this list) and claims to be a messiah but not Christ. A merger discussion may be reasonable: "What is the best way to organize these lists?". This is an AfD discussion though: "Should this list title and contents be purged from Wikipedia?" I don't see much support for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though possibly a rename to List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ, son of God may be appropriate in order to clarify the content more explicitly. It is a useful, and interesting, reference list and whilst it overlaps with messiahs is substantially different enough to not be mergable. (It also worries me when I see multiple attempts to delete an article, but that was not part of my reasoning here). -AlisonW (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and leave the title as it is; it is perfectly clear and is comparable to many other articles about people who have claimed to be the central figure of a particular religion, such as People claiming to be the Mahdi, List of Buddha claimants, Jewish Messiah claimants, etc. I suppose for clarity it could be changed to List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ (adding "Christ" to the name), but that dab does not conform to other Wikipedia usage; the wiki article here is simply titled Jesus, and Jesus Christ is a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Internet in Colombia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Internet in Colombia

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

This is original research with no proper sources for the content. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The reference listed actually does seem to back up the claim; the problem is, WordPress is an open blog. If some reliable sources can be found, I can change to a keep. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet in Colombia and then redirect. I found this as a source of what was happening c. 1997. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet in Colombia. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to (re-)creating a disambiguation page in the form recommended by WP:MOSDAB Sandstein 13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecostructure

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub for what may eventually become a disambiguation page. The speedy deletion template was added so quickly it must have been done by a bot. I would hope to be able to discuss this with a real human. I was motivated to create this page when a few months ago someone mentioned "ecostructure" on the "infrastructure" page. The word intrigued me, so I Googled it, and this admitedly very rough draft is essentially a result of these Google searches. AlexPlante (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any actual concrete and coherent concept being explained, here? Because the article as it stands doesn't convey one to me, a reader. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy-deleting was by User:Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I saw this on speedy, and had not decided what to do about it--it fit no speedy criterion, but seemed to be intended to include a number of promotionally worded sections for different things, most of them not likely to be notable. The first section should be expanded with the actual references; possibly it it is just a vogue word with no specific meaning, but I'd need to judge that after seeing a proper article. . There is no need for a disam page unless the other aspects can be written into separate articles. I strongly support the idea of combination articles for closely related things not each worth a separate article, but this is an example where only the vague idea of naming something by what might seem like a fashionable variant term is in common. That does not make an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to rewrite the article. Actually, I've just re-formatted it. I hope to flesh it out more by Tuesday, if it's not deleted by then. AlexPlante (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more material. The word has at least 4 meanings, that are described in the article. There seems to be a 5th meaning, this time medical, but I don't seem to be able to find any good explanations for it on the web. AlexPlante (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a reference for the medical term: it's ultrasound jargon AlexPlante (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added new material & links, and did some reorganizing of the article. Apparently 300 people a day view the article, and I hope some of you will improve it or comment on it.AlexPlante (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I applaud AlexPlante and other authors for the recent attempts to improve the article, but at its heart it is still a discussion of multiple definitions of a word, and that word is a neologism. Thus the article runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on two counts. Articles on some of the concepts the word is said to refer to already exist, but don't use the word; new articles on the other concepts may be created, though it is not clear that this would be the proper title for any of them. Since no current articles use the term in their titles, disambiguation is not necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would make sense to move the whole thing over to the Wiktionnary? I'm not sure how to do that, or how to link to Wiktionnay article in a Wikipedia article. (This whole thing started because someone brought up the term "ecostructure" in the infrastructure article, and my original aim was to create a stub "ecostructure" article so I would link to it from the infrastructure article, and hope others would flesh out this article) AlexPlante (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could create an Ecostructure article over at Wiktionary if you think it would help. Linking to a Wiktionary article from Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) is simple enough, you can use either [[wiktionary:Ecostructure]] or [[wikt:Ecostructure]] to get there. I would read up on their policies first though, such as Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next weekend (if I have time) I'll cut and paste some of the more enclyclopedia-like paragraphs to the relevant articles, and I'll create the wiktionnary page. I hope no-one deletes the article until I have time to do this. AlexPlante (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get back in time, you can always ask the closing admin for a copy of the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the whole thing to my sandbox AlexPlante (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: malformed article that appears to be a disambiguation page with a number of the disambiguated-to-topic-stubs bolted on. The result is a multiple-meaning-of-one-neologism-based WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Unclear if any of the 'stub-topics' are individually notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a dictionary term and neologism. AlexPlante seems to be taking a good direction with this, best of luck to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied and pruned page Ecostructure into a nearly normal disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canegrati's formulae

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

Non-notable concept, apparently self-named by the author. There are 4 works cited. The two works cited that are not written by Canegrati himself pre-date 'Canegrati's formulae', and so cannot establish it's notability. The two papers by Canegrati are MPRA papers, which are working papers uploaded to the Munich Personal RePEc Archive – these are essentially self-published and hence are not reliable sources. A google scholar search for "Canegrati's formulae"[15] or "Canegrati's formula"[16] return no results. A general google search returns Wikipedia articles and mirrors.[17] LK (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources for notability are found. The RS in the article would be the Mulligan and Sala-i-Martin NBER article and the Political Economics by Persson and Tabellini; however, the word "Canegrati" does not appear in either of these publications and it looks like these two sources are used to cite more general statements (in a somewhat misleading way suggesting that they refer to this specific formula, but AGF and all that). Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's discussion on Talk:Single-mindedness theory that might be relevant, although a similar (somewhat ad hominem) discussion can be found on this article's talk page too. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless/until at least one peer-reviewed published source is provided. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable idea by a non-notable academic. I have had dozens of those.... Bearian (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Buddhism

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

Delete. Article is entirely composed of original research. Lead has evolved from "Postmodern Buddhism can be defined as ..." to "Postmodern Buddhism is associated with a syncretic and eclectic approach ...". Requests for a source which provides a formal definition have been ignored. Requests to verify that sources are about "Postmodern Buddhism" rather than Postmodern interpretations of Buddhism have been ignored. None of the string of sources on the final sentence even contain the word "Postmodern". This is complete synthesis. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of topic not at all established. One of the main claims is that "postmodern" Buddhists get along with other religions. This has been an aspect of Buddhism all along. Wolfview (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've also nominated Postmodern religion.Wolfview (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - postmodern religion, postmodern Christianity and now postmodern Buddhism have all been simultaneously nominated for deletion.

You can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism.

The convention with postmodernism is postmodern art, postmodern architecture, postmodern psychology postmodern music and so on. This article follows that connection and links to the larger article, postmodern religion. This can be a tough subject to write about and I am trying to do it in a way that is clear and easy to understand for the reader.

Postmodern Wicca was nominated for deletion, so I changed the title to Postmodern Neopaganism(because the Wicca community did not like the Wicca title) which was then merged to postmodern religion. Now postmodern religion, postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Buddhism are all being simultaneously nominated as articles for deletion. The references for postmodern Buddhism seem good enough for the article to stay and there is nothing wrong with a short article.

Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
^ Swatos and Kivisto (1998) Encylopedia of religion and society - Sage Publications - page 68
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
^ "Chinese Cultural Studies: The Spirits of Chinese Religion". Academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ Windows on Asia - Chinese Religions
^ "Religions and Beliefs in China". Travelchinaguide.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "SACU Religion in China". Sacu.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Index-China Chinese Philosophies and religions". Index-china.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Buddhism in China". AskAsia. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Buddhism And Its Spread Along The Silk Road". Globaled.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.

Kary247 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use more 'long tail keywords' and be a bit lateral like - 'postmodern buddhism defining'

example 1 example 2 example 3 example 4 example 5

(maybe be a bit more lateral when searching for sources and use more long tail keywords etc.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with these long tail keyword searches is that they bring up nothing to support "Postmodern Buddhism" as a separately existing entity. For example the first occurrences of the word in the links given come up with postmodern modifying the nouns thought, pundits, culture, scenarios, writers, foibles, theory and themes. None come up with Postmodern Buddhism as far as I can see. While I'm probably convinced that there is a such as thing as postmodern views of Buddhism, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as Postmodern Buddhism. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The titles of the books I have included use the term "postmodern thought in Buddhism" and "Buddhism and postmodern imag." and "Teaching Buddhism in the postmodern university" and "study of buddhism in the postmodern world" etc. If you google 'postmodern buddhism for Google books. I am just following the naming conventions at Postmodernism, so there is Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern religion etc.

Please see SEE THIS VERSION

Delete. Although many references have been adduced, they do not in my view support the existence of a notable entity called Postmodern Buddhism. As a small example, a recent reference from the BBC website does not relate to postmodern Buddhism, but rather describes how ancient religions such as Buddhism have elements which echo - but obviously predate - postmodern thinking.[18] Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and there's no real references that convince me this should stay. Basileias (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability: Postmodern interpretations of all religions are included in most University courses - I am sure lots of University students and younger people who are more postmodern in their thinking would appreciate an article like this. Given the connection to the main article postmodern religion, the topic is worthy. Postmodern theory - critical literacy- is included in primary school curriculums. If we can have Postmodern Christianity, and Postmodern law, then we can have Postmodern Buddhism. You can really say that there is no such thing as postmodern Buddhism because we live in a postmodern era.
Further sources: Considerable serious work is being done concerning postmodernism and Buddhism. See Newman Robert Glass, Working Emptiness: Toward a Third Reading in Buddhism and Postmodern Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) and David Loy, ed., Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
American University - Washington DC "Jin Park specialises in Buddhist philosophy/postmodernism...In her comparative study, Park reads Zen and Huayan Buddhism together with postmodern thought"
Postmodern Buddhism also refers to Buddhism within the context of postmodern society

I don't think we should have some have religions included, Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Neopaganism, and exclude other religions, like Postmodern Buddhism. The main article, postmodern religion, won't be very good if we can't branch out to all of the different postmodern religious interpretations.
Following the naming conventions already established at Postmodernism, the correct title for an article about postmodern interpretations of religion, and Buddhism in the postmodern era, is Postmodern Buddhism
Logically can we say that there is no such thing as Postmodern Buddhism when we live in a postmodern age? Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective?

See source Source: A magic still dwells: Comparative religion in a postmodern age - University of California--Kary247 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above comment Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective? illustrates the problem with this article. No we (Wikipedia) CANNOT say this. All we can do is find reliable sources which carry out this interpretation, and the article does not have sources that specifically discuss a concept termed "Postmodern Buddhism". Given that 'postmodern' is a term applied to specific cultural aspects in the West, particularly in Europe, it seems unlikely that the bulk of practitioners of Buddhism (who, guess what, don't live in Europe) would even put the two terms in the same sentence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't run a search on Asian search engines to find out about postmodern Buddhism, that is a good idea though - the Dalai Lama is an example of a Buddhist who uses postmodern interpretations of Buddhism. The article does need more sources and information, but is only a few weeks old. Some of the ideas are established in the main article so I thought it would be circular referencing to reuse the same sources in the connected article. The naming conventions at Postmodernism mean that the title of the article is Postmodern Buddhism, but the topic of the article is postmodern interpretations of Buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era etc. Reliable sources about postmodern interpretations of buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era can be found by running a search on Google books using keywords like postmodern religion buddhism and buddhism postmodern religion.--Kary247 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I reiterate - we are only fully in a postmodern era in western Europe. You speak as if the whole world is exhibiting the same cultural artefact. Unless either (a) the Dalai Lama has specifically spoken of "Postmodern Buddhism", or a commentator has described his utterings as "Postmodern Buddhism", it is not acceptable as a source for this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these Google books may be good sources for an article in the category of Philosophy about postmodern interpretations of Buddhism postmodern religion buddhism and buddhism postmodern religion, but of course I have not had time to work through these sources yet, because the article was only created recently.--Kary247 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: The majority of comments are for delete but sources have been asserted but are unevaluated. It would be very helpful if these sources could be evaluated and commented upon as they are the basis on which the consensus hangs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spartaz, if not for you so much of my time would have been wasted and a good topic ditched. I just don't have time to go through the thousands of Google books but here is a quote that might be useful from one of the Google books.

"Postmodern Buddhism is seen in much of the Shamb-hala community of Tibetan Buddhism led by the Dalai Lama, and in the widespread fascination with the mystique of zen. Postmodern Hinduism is found in the teachings of many popular Indian gurus, in the West's discovery of the wisdom of Vedanta, and in the growing popularity of yoga and other Vedic traditions. Postmodern Taoism is seen in the popularity of tai chi, chi gong, and feng shui, and in the renewed interest in traditional Chinese medicine. Postmodern Judaism can be recognized in the newly revived tradition of the Kabbalah." - Steve McIntosh, Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution (Get the book.) Amazon.

Just to save time - Ghandi is a postmodern thinker. Dalai Lama etc. I would think that given that we have postmodern religion now (did not get deleted) and given that Postmodern Christianity did not get deleted, Buddhism should be included too?--Kary247 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT, WP:SNOW. Reso lute 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010/12/30 Sharks vs. Blackhawks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2010/12/30 Sharks vs. Blackhawks

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

Non-notable regular season game. We don't do articles on individual games. Corvus cornix_talk 05:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not news and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regarding the National Hockey League articles, the current general consensus of WikiProject Ice Hockey is not to have articles on each individual regular season game. With each of the 30 NHL teams playing 82 regular season games during a season, there is not enough notability, in the long term, to warrant creating over 2460 separate pages every year. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We can't have articles about every single ice hockey game. JIP | Talk 08:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly what an article should not be. Qworty (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zzyzx11. (Also, I note that neither the San Jose Sharks nor the Chicago Blackhawks are actually mentioned in this article after the title.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Individual regular-season games like this aren't notable unless there is strong evidence otherwise. I don't see any reason why an exception should be made here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a wikia sports almanac to move this to? 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable regular season game, simply does not warrant an article. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. keep arguments based on notabiluty do not counter arguments based on BLP1E or ONEEVENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to expand on my rationale for closing this so here goes.

The basis of the nomination was that the subject was a classic BLP1E. Another 8 editors agreed with this. 6 editors including one defector from the delete side argued that this subject easily met the GNG and the article should be retained. There were also two arguments to move the article to the event but this position did not gain any traction. Since the delete side did not have an overwhelming majority the sheer numbers do not give an consensus to delete so we have to look closely at the arguments.

The keep arguments were pretty much based around the notability arising from the press coverage. This is undoubted. The deletion arguments based on BLP1E & ONEEVENT implicity accept the the subject passed the GNG but as BLP1E states if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. This appears to have been the case. By simply relying on GNG the keep side failed to demonstrate sufficient significance to overcome the argument that this was a 1E. According to BLP The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. No overriding evidence of persistence of coverage was demonstrated in the discussion and the example of a significant individual who overcomes BLP1E from the policy is someone like John Hinkley whose noteriety this person clearly does not match.

So what was I left with? The argument that this was a BLP1E and ONEEVENT wasn't countered by demonstrating enduring significance. According to the policy the article therefore stood for deletion. Passing GNG on its own can be no bar to deletion under BLP1E as otherwise nothing would ever be deleted for that reason. For these reasons the consensus here was clearly for deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Hakimzadeh

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

This subject seems to be a bit of a classical fit for WP:1E. From a search on google news, there is clearly a good amount of coverage about this singular event. But the only coverage not surrounding this event that I could find is his mention here. It explains there that he is the "chief executive of the Iranian Heritage Foundation", but i'm not sure if that's really enough. Especially considering that it seems that there is no Iranian Heritage Foundation article on its own. A Google Books search brings up a lot of mentions, but they seem to all fall under the category of thanking him for his help in making the book or publications that he was involved in. Not really any notability to be had there. A Scholar search brings up much the same thing, a bunch of thank you's and not much else. I don't believe there is really enough notability to be had on this subject other than this one event that he is involved in. Silver seren^C 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it from high orbit - it's classic BLP1E and seems to serve only to disparage its subject. His one crime dominates the entire article, in fact the opening line is a complete joke. Kill it with fire already :( - Alison ^❤ 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that this response made me laugh. :P Silver seren^C 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News sources? Yes. Evidence of fame? No. In terms of people, I tend to accept the latter. Minima c (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a record of (fairly) minor crimes, however unusual. Wolfview (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I created this article this story was all over the news. WP:1E and BLP1E don't forbid us from having articles on those convicted of serious crimes; they merely discourage us from unduly highlighting insignificant people rather than the single event they are known for. The subject was convicted of the crimes, and news coverage was significant as discussed above; much of the coverage does focus on the individual who perpetrated these crimes. Perhaps a move to a different title would be a compromise? The event was pretty notable and in my opinion deserves an article, even if the consensus now is that the subject doesn't, something I am not fully convinced of myself. --John (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, when you're dealing with a significant event, you make an article on the event itself, not the people involved in the event. That's pretty much exactly what WP:1E says. I think you'd be better off just making the event from scratch, you don't need this article, it has practically nothing in it. Silverseren^C 08:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And frankly, starting an article with "[subject] is an Iranian-born British author, businessman, collector, and thief." is a bit of a non-starter. Good grief! - Alison ^❤ 10:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - John didn't in fact create the article that way, note. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Minor flurry of news stories at the time, but no sign of enduring notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. Has continued in 2010 to receive coverage since the event. A look at the Category:Convicted book-thieves shows that the convention is to create articles about the thief rather than the thieving. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an incorrect conclusion to draw, given that unlike this article several of those biographies are actually full biographies, with more than just accounts of book thefts in them. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, William Jacques is maybe something this article can aspire to. Lack of content isn't grounds for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG; the subject has received significant press coverage. Besides, were not talking about "minor crimes" here, and the article shows that the subject is famous for more than one event. Any bias toward the subject or lack of content can be tagged and improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this person's notability seems to be established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The other problems with this article are likely to be fixable through regular editing. Reyk _YO! 05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Pontificalibus,s accurate reasonings for keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear WP:BLP1E, and a recent (and far smaller) flurry of coverage centring around his eventual conviction for that self-same 1 event does not alter the fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historic event to be sure. How often does something like this happen? Ample coverage. A lasting effect of this person's actions, is the British Library increased their security dramatically, I adding that into the article with a reference to the BBC news. Dream Focus 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since security was changed. This man stole a piece of civilization from two libraries. Worthy of note, and a warning to other places.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:ONEVENT. Everyone upgrades security after a theft in your home, office etc, that's routine. 210.56.72.185 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, however, that a home theft does not typically receive "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources", so it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The subject in question does. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event in question does, not the person, which is exactly what WP:BLP1E states. Silver seren^C 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is one of the references titled "The thief who stole pages from history" and provides what is certainly "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only four sentences in that reference is about him. And it all relates, regardless, to the singular event. This article should be about this one event, which will never be more than just this event. Silver seren^C 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only four sentences"? The article in question mentions Hakimzadeh by name 18 times! The article is centered on Hakimzadeh and (arguably) provides "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh from the very first sentence ("To staff at the British Library, Farhad Hakimzadeh seemed...") to the very last line ("But the actual reasons why this wealthy and cultured man defaced..."). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E, if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? no. WP:PERP applies. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This passes #3 of WP:PERP, and WP:BLP1E does not suggest deletion, simply that the article should be renamed to 2008 British Library thefts or similar. Is that what you are arguing for? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, please stop putting words into my mouth. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you are citing polcies to support your "Delete" argument that only justify a renaming of the article. Do you have a genuine reason for deletion rather than the fact you don't like the article name? Do you think the entire event is non-notable perhaps? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my delete !vote stands. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but that doesn't justify deletion, only renaming. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it justifies deletion, my !vote stands so please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was meant to be a debate. WP:BLUDGEON would apply if I repeated the same point in reply to many people, it doesn't apply whenever someone highlights flaws in your argument. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you are right then it would be a snow keep. but since you say you are right you must be right. you still qualify for BLUDGEON by "This is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." LibStar (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Since he is notable for a crime only, we should rename and make it a crime article. Soewinhan (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move and focus the article on the crime. Clearly there is a will to preserve the information about the crime itself, and whilst I'm not convinced the crime passes notability, the debate here has been about whether there should be an article about the person. As the person is solely notable in connection with this theft, it's a clear WP:BIO1E. If anyone questions whether the crime is notable, that's better discussed in a fresh AfD without the notability of the person muddying the issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With luck we'll get a closing admin who will discount the keep votes as largely fraudulent. Let's quote from WP:BLP1E; "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is only in the news for committing this crime. This person is otherwise a low-profile individual. What else can be said about the crime, that it led to improved security at the British Library? Gee, ya think? This is pure one-event and WP:NOTNEWS material, and should serve as a general caution to creation-happy editors to not just scan today's headlines and pick out something they think is interesting. I was about to point out the surprise at Owen Honors still thankfully being a redlink, then saw in post preview that it was not. Off to weigh in on yet another pointless article... Tarc (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your edit summary say delete, but your vote says Keep? Did you mistype one of them? Silver seren^C 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tarc meant delete. Oh well. In any case ... "largely fraudulent"? Really? So all of us who !voted keep (six, not including Tarc) are frauds? Are cheaters trying to harm this encyclopedia? Talk about assuming good faith! I'd be careful before making a sweeping judgement like that if I were you, Tarc. Stay civil. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. Not sure how the nasty "K" word got into my entry, but it has been fixed accordingly. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silvao Santos

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

A search for references found no support for notability. The subject's competition record is unremarkable. Janggeom (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria--he's fighting non-notable fighters in second tier promotions. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter who fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The dispute seems to be, not whether the artist is notable, but whether an article should be made before the work has been released. Anyone may renominate the article if the album is not released on 31 January 2011. Mandsford 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Idols

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

Unreleased album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dolovis (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Album by a notable artist has a sourced tracklist, coverart, and release date. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like Hitmixes (AfD discussion) which is heading for deletion for a second time? ☺ It is amusing to see two mutually contradictory discussions right next to each other. Uncle G (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chase & Status discography, Surely its going to be released, but more info is needed to have a page of its own. Redirect for now. Ga Be 19 05:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NALBUM, "the musician or ensemble is notable" and "the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources" (google it) so it's definitely notable. Gabe19, what more information do you want? There's already a track list, cover art and release date. How is WP:CRYSTAL relevant? This doesn't violate that. Per Scott M. Howard, all the info is referenced in a reliable source - nothing here is speculative. Mhiji (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If this release is so "notable", there should be more than one reference, besides the reference used is from iTunes; there are hundreds if not thousands of releases in the iTunes store, many that aren't notable, such as this release. Ga Be 19 02:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - here's a whole list of references, if you want them. Specifically, Amazon.co.uk seems pretty reputable. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then they should be added, right?? Ga Be 19 08:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really, what's the point of having a hundred references for the same thing?! Mhiji (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It adds to the verifiability. plus what if one reference becomes a dead link... now it's unreferened ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly! Having one source doesn't make it notable. Is there any other coverage on it, (ie. promotion, reviews, recording, etc.)? If your going to make a page, have the intention of expanding it and updating it as time goes on. Ga Be 19 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The main thing that makes this notable is the artist's notability per WP:NALBUM. Extra info can and will be added to it as time goes on. Mhiji (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I can hardly see iTunes disappearing any time soon... Add the Amazon one if you like, but I don't really think it's necessary since that doesn't have any information that the iTunes one doesn't. Mhiji (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, that is not a "whole list of references". It's a URL for a search. It's not even a citation. And for me the search turns up a whole load of stuff that isn't a source at all, including a Wikipedia article and quite a lot of shopping catalogues. A search URL is not a source citation, and doesn't necessarily even yield sources (or indeed the even same thing for two different people around the world). Uncle G (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ScottMHowad. CPerked (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable details, notable artist, minimal coverage at present, but it would be pointless to delete this now with only a few weeks before release.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 31 December 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. I can't make any consensus out of this discussion on whether the articles meet the notability guideline or not. There are some weak arguments made by some contributors, but after giving them less weight I cannot say either argument has a consensus here. As such no consensus can be the only outcome. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitmixes

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUM --Cprice1000talk2me 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-This article does not give basically any info that you can't get for the discography...it just simply does not have enough information--Blackjacks101 (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Notable in Canada, has credits and plenty of sources, but if this were something like The Cherrytree Sessions I would commetn otherwhise. Tbhotch^™ ^© Happy New Year 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tb, I think we would be stretching if we say plenty of sources. We might say that plenty of sources indicate that it exists, however do any of them establish its notability? Something to think about. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure – It isn't very notable, but I'm not sure if I'd support it's deletion. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I was surprised that the article only had a big tracklist, an infobox and two lines saying that it charted in Canada. The lines being already present in Lady Gaga discography. Then I had waited thinking that some information might come up, like The Cherrytree Sessions. Well, ultimately nothing has come up after a long wait, and now if its nominated for deletion, so be it. If notability can't be established, then its a waste of article space. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Look at WP:NALBUM. It mentions that something little more than a track listing is not notable. --Cprice1000talk2me 05:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like No More Idols (AfD discussion), which is heading for a keep consensus on the grounds that it has cover art, a date, and a track list? ☺ It is amusing to see two mutually contradictory discussions right next to each other. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the main difference is that NMI is a future album unlike Hitmixes, which was released a year ago. Tbhotch^™ ^© Happy New Year 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So we keep the albums that haven't been released yet and delete them when they've been around for a bit, then? I'm fairly sure that that isn't a criterion upon which a keep/delete consensus should be based. ☺ Both articles are very similar (infobox, picture, small amount of prose, tracklisting, dates, sources), and both sets of editors are saying "per WP:NALBUM", I observe. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. --Cprice1000talk2me 16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Other stuff may exist, however when you have a similar situation, the merits of comments in one discussion are also true for the other. Grk1011 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, that album 'No More Idols', is upcoming, while this album has been around for over a year, and has yet to rise above notability. Also note that the result was not about notability, but about why it should be kept so it can develope. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not only is this your second "delete" (as your nom above should be the only one that you have), but your reasoning is flawed. Nowhere does NALBUMS say that articles with a track listing are not notable, it says they may be more appropriately merged into a discography space permitting. However, in the sentence before that, it says they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. We have independent coverage and from what I'm seeing in this discussion, there is more coverage than you thought or at least cared to find. Grk1011 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 sources, 3 of which aren't even from this country. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant which country the sources are from... Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I though we were supposed to add something else. Oops! XD I'll just change this to a note, then. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it's such a major artist and was a top 10 hit in Canada, 'notability' can't seriously be questioned. So it's a short article - not really a problem.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles that are little more than a track listing should be deleted or merged. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the charts, the personnel, the review provided below waiting for addition? This article has the potential to be much more than a track listing. People here have stated that they tried to expand the article for some time now, but haven't been able to. How can you say this when some flyby editor found a review so quickly? Grk1011 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - As stated before, charts count for little, it means it should have actual content. Also, a bunch of Canadian reviews from some newspapers are hardly notable reviews, also already stated. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While its existence is notable, all we have to write about is its track listing, credits, and charting in Canada. I have struggled to find any reviews; if there were any maybe I could change my opinion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Seeing that it has received a review, I'm not really inclined either way. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is sourced, has a tracklisting, cover art etc etc. It's charted on a national chart. Also, it's by one of the most notable artists in the world. I can't see how this wouldn't be notable?! Mhiji (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you not read WP:NALBUM? It clearly states that little more than a track list, no matter who the artist be, is not notable. --Cprice1000talk2me 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", which is completely different to what you claim it says.--Michig (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See space permitting. If it was some small artist with one not notable album, that's what would be done. --Cprice1000talk2me 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That sentence means merge if the parent article isn't too big, otherwise leave it as a standalone article. It isn't suggesting deleting encyclopedic material just because the parent article is already large.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I've read every word of it. Per Michig, it doesn't say that. If you are going to quote the guidelines, please do so directly, rather than your interpretation of them. Mhiji (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how someone could think that this is not notable. It was officially released and charted, and well at that. If it was by a less notable artist I could be persuaded otherwise, but a release by someone so notable and prominent in today's music industry?. This seems like another case of an article that could be expanded, but no one seems to be willing to do it, at least right now. Grk1011 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- People have been trying to expand it for over a year. If it hasn't happened yet, it obviously cannot be expanded. --Cprice1000talk2me 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to above, it can be expanded to include album reviews in Canadian newspapers, such as (August 25, 2009) "Best Dance: Lady Gaga: Hitmixes", Calgary Herald, p. E2. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those reviews aren't very notable either. Maybe one can be added, but I don't think the others will work. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an official physical release by a major artist that charted. Just the fact that it charted on a major chart should be enough. It could be expanded per suggestion above. Just because it has been around for a year in this condition doesn't mean it cannot. Greekboy (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUM and for all reasons in the delete votes before this one. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Seems that most of those in favor of keep have just given opinions, while those who wish it to be deleted have shown why it should be deleted according to notability policies. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... It seems to me that most of the keep votes are saying why it should be kept because of the various ways that it passes the notability criteria, including having charted, having coverage in third party reliable sources, and the list continues. Your and others' opinions are that it doesn't pass, while the keep people's opinion is that it does. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with this comment. The closing admin certainly can read through the responses and weigh the merits of each side. Grk1011 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that this is not a song and it does not matter if it charted or not. It only mentions that most songs that have charted rise above notability guidlines, not albums. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if the comments above have "per WP:NALBUM" (or something similar) after them... We all know here that that is the guideline which we are all referring to (both those in favour of keeping and those in favour of deleting). Mhiji (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May be slim on content, but meets WP:NALBUMS. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? --Cprice1000talk2me 02:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Adabow's first comment. Novice7 | Talk 03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – From what others have said on the issue, I am convinced that this article should stay. As Candy said, it does meet the guidelines. It's notable. It's by a very notable artist. All it needs is someone to take the time to expand on it. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 04:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If really notable reviews are found then it may be worth considering, but waiting so long, and my personal research also reutrned nothing substantial for teh article. Has anybody found anything concrete about the article anywhere? Printed sources would do too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I know the specs of this release really well. It was generated by Gaga's labels (Interscope and it's affiliates Cherrytree/Streamline/Kon Live), however those labels didn't actually release it in their own territory (the US). Instead it was only picked up by one Universal Music Group company, and that was Universal Music Canada. Some sources say that it was exclusive to one retailer HMV, and that would make sense since I don't see it in the databases of any other major Canadian retailers. Also it was a one-shot deal, so now that stocks have depleted it's most definitely discontinued. In hindsight, it's nothing more than a typical promotional remix disc for radio/DJs, which incidentally went a step further by getting a one-shot promo release deal through a single retailer, HMV. So exactly how notable is this release in Gaga's discography? The fact that it got this much attention is because it's a physical release, when in fact, dozens of market-unique remix 'EPs' are made available via iTunes regularly, including ones related to Gaga (not surprising as her music is in the dance domain anyway). As for the prospects of expansion, they're undoubtedly very slim. I have tried myself to expand the page, in fact I think I may have added the charting section after I searched for charting info. My concern is more with calling this release her second 'EP', and The Fame Monster her third proceeding this, as this can't possibly be an absolute chronology. There's definitely other digital-format EP releases out there, possibly on different online stores in different national markets. But this is a greater issue concerning the current state of Gaga's discographic wiki pages. Imperatore (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I concur with most of the comments previously made. Although several reliable sources indicate its existence, the sources do not help establish its notability. Independent articles should only be created where there is sufficient information to create a detailed article. As of present, there is not. The information could be summarized into several sentences (negative the track listing) and hence the article serves little purpose. I agree that the collection did chart but it was only in one territory. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They sell it at Chapters, too. Yves (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the background information of the release? The different reviews and the chart performance? Any singles released or promotion? No. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with Xwomanizerx. No promotion, only remixes of previously heard songs, article is a stub and does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM, simply charting in one country isnt significant coverage. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It entered in the top ten in Canada, it's enough for it to have an article. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* You have obviously either failed to thoroughly read WP:NALBUM or you just feel it should be kept because it's a Lady GaGa article. --Cprice1000talk2me 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From that one sentence how have you decided that Merynancy has not read WP:NALBUM? Or that she wants it to be kept because it's a Lady Gaga article?! Merynancy didn't say anything like that; if she had thought that I'm sure she would have written it. Please respond constructively to the arguments put forward by editors, rather than what you think they might have thought... Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because if you read WP:NALBUM, you would see that an album charting is irrelevant to an album's notability. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't say that. The only line at WP:NALBUM which I can see that is relevant here as to whether we keep or delete this article is the line "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musician is notable (I'm sure we all agree with that). The album has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (see Hitmixes#References). It is an officially released album. Therefore the album "may have sufficient notability" to have an individual article. The guideline says it "may have sufficient notability". With albums there is no fixed criteria as to whether an album should have an article or not, we primarily use the sentence that I have just quoted to see if the album "may have sufficient notability" (which it does) and then we look at the merits of each album on a case-by-case basis to establish whether it is notable or not (If it doesn't meet the criteria that it "may have sufficient notability", then the article should be deleted, otherwise it may be notable). So please stop saying that other arguments about whether it is notable aren't relevant because they are not mentioned at WP:NALBUM. Facts such as that the album has charted on a national chart are significant - if an album has charted at number 1 in 20 countries around the world it will definitely be notable. If it has not charted anywhere, it is less likely to be notable. The fact that it has charted in (at least) one country is definitely an argument as to it's notability. Mhiji (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Cprice1000, I don't change idea about my vote. I'm not a fanatic of Lady Gaga, but I think this article should be kept. I know it's irrilevant, but why do other 8 wikipedias have it? On the wikipedia in english we keep articles like Christina Milian's fourth album, about albums that will probably never be released, i really don't see why we can't keep this. And it doesn't fail WP:NALBUM. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in better shape now than when it was first nominated, which the nominator should acknowledge. Also, a guideline from WP:NALBUMS has been misquoted a whole bunch of times in this debate. The sentence in question: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. does NOT say that an article with little more than a tracklist should be deleted because the album is not notable. Also, this article is now more than a tracklist thanks to the work done as a result of this debate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? A sorry critical reception section (though it is beautifully written) with nothing but a Canadian reviw, which is not notable anyway, is hardly an improvement. Still little more than a track list, considering charts don't effect notability. --Cprice1000talk2me 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are going to comment all the keep votes? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why you think the Calgary Herald is not notable. In case you are not aware, Calgary is one of the biggest cities in Canada, the country of this release. Yves (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not so not notable to where it can't stay in the article, but it's not exactly a review that should effect a page's overall notability much. Also, Calgary Herald is also just a newspaper, not even a magazine or critic's website. It has little to do with music. --Cprice1000talk2me 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you're saying if a review came from The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, it would be less notable than, say, one from PopMatters? Yves (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York and LA Times are the two most widely circulated newspapers in the US, that is distributed across the nation, not a local paper with about 1,000 readers. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that it was only released in Canada, we should only expect there to be reviews from Canadian media. The issue here seems to be that people are viewing this album in the same way they would a worldwide release when in reality it is only specific to one country. The album does not need to be universally notable, just notable in its target market where in this case it was. Grk1011 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

& You're talking like the United States are the centre of the world. Canada, as all the other nations, is as important as the US are. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a citizen of Canada I can agree with Cprice saying that the Calgary Herald isn't that notable, our most notable newspapers are the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, National Post etc....again I am saying this as a citizen who is not biased towards any other country except Canada--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle of the Midwest Sea

AfDs for this article:

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

recreation of recently deleted page. fails WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in independent sources. Allmusic lists ALL MUSIC and can not be used to establish notability. jesusfreakhideout not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jesus freak hideout is a reliable source per Talk:Jesus Freak Hideout#JfH as a reliable source. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is the applicable guideline here, not dubious talk page assertions. Dlabtot (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album was nominated to a notable Christian award (Dove Awards) and is favorably reviewed in several notable Christian sources (see Christian music sources). I'll keep working on it though. Thief12 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking over the article closely it seems to have several third party sources. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was non-admin close: already resolved without any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahamut0013 (talk • contribs)

Zastava M70B

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

Unsourced, minor variant of Zastava M70, proposed merger but failed to attract much attention Buttons (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you should have just merged it yourself with the edit tool. AFD, and the deletion tool, form no part whatsoever of the article merger process. They don't even form a part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that sometimes follows on from such use of the ordinary edit tool. Don't come here when you want an ordinary editorial action taken that you can take yourself. Be bold! AFD, a chronically high-traffic area of the project, has enough traffic to cope with with genuine requests for the use of the actual deletion tool. Only come to Articles for deletion if you want no merger, removal of the content (preventing its use in any other article and precluding merger), and removal of the entire edit history, by the deletion tool. Uncle G (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I wasn't aware I could do that, I presumed only Admins could merg articles. Thanks and regards - Buttons (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the overall scheme of actually doing this sort of content work, we can do very little more than what you can do. Ordinary editorial stuff like this anyone, even someone without an account, can do. And anyone can undo, if the doing is not seen as an improvement. That's supposed to be the idea. The editing workload is shared by everyone, and tasks are not funnelled through the comparatively small group of people who happen to have some extra tools. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and speedy close as wrong venue. If nobody objected (and they shouldn't, seems like a simple redundantcy to me), then you can use the "move page" link. See WP:MOVE. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Proctor

AfDs for this article:

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

Most sources are primary. Article is heavy on COI and trivia. Another user tried to nominate this but instead relisted a discussion from 2009, which had a result of "no consensus", so this is more a procedural nom than anything else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, nothing to indicate notability. He once ran for mayor of Pasadena but lost heavily, getting barely a thousand votes. His professional wrestling activities seem equally non-notable. Same for his writing and blogging. Basically he is a 29-year-old who has yet to make any mark on the world. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has achieved some notoriety in two very different areas. Notability is established with indepedent, third party sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being an also-ran candidate in a smallish city doesn't confer notability. Plenty of coverage in local periodicals, but a lack of coverage outside of that. Many of the articles simply mention Proctor in coverage of the mayor. Others are coverage about yet another blog- hardly sufficient for depth of coverage per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - clearly non-notable for being a failed political candidate, see WP:POLITICIAN. Ditto for his blogging. He may be notable as a pro wrestler, but cites would be needed for this. (I don't know enough about pro wrestling). In any case his blogging and political "careers" are non notable and should be hugely reduced, like to a single sentence. Adpete (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't been relevant since 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.19 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The accumulated importance of the subjects various activities do not seem to achieve article level importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Vanity page, nothing at all to indicate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.62.240 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — 74.109.62.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Circle (Pennsauken)

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

Contested prod. This seems like a non-notable traffic circle to me. Yeah, its old, but really, its a traffic circle. Any relevant info can be covered in the route articles ,List of traffic circles in New Jersey, or in the Pennsauken Township, New Jersey article. Admrboltz (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough and the image doesn't even look like it is a traffic circle.Sumsum2010·T·C 04:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since it now appears to be the oldest rotary traffic circle in the United States, I suppose that does give it sufficient notability, although the real reason is that new sources have been added to sufficiently demonstrate notability (which is not inherent). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 13:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) ~~Delete:~~ Of the three online references, one doesn't work and one doesn't really mention the subject. I can't find any sources online beyond the one news source provided. Hence, I don't think the subject has received the "significant coverage" demanded by the general notability guideline. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one that "doesn't work" does work if one simply looks it up (by the title, dateline, and byline supplied in the citation) in the Courier-Post's archives. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... you were right, but only the abstract is free. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 13:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I've found some sources to help, which I'll add shortly. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced claim to be the "first rotary of its kind in the U.S."[19] makes this notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This circle has historical value in being the first highway traffic circle in the U.S. Dough 48 72 16:09, 31 December 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. Snow close and withdrawn by user. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lights On

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

Non-charting single is not notable. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Dolovis (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the song is not notable per WP:NSONGS at the moment, it will be when this nomination ends. It's currently at number 2 on the UK mid-week chart (see here) and so will definitely chart on the UK Singles Chart (and thus be notable) on Sunday. Mhiji (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm considering a "wait and see" opinion based solely on the fact that Katy's other single (which is ALSO from this unconfirmed album) charted very well. On a side note, the Katy B article is in need of some serious expansion. Very little information there for an artist with multiple charted songs. False-notability? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if it isn't notable now, then it should not be included and we should not have to resort to a CRYSTALBALL explanation for it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, per Dolovis below, the song has charted, so it is now notable. There's no longer a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Mhiji (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - See TOP 40 OFFICIAL UK SINGLES ARCHIVE, song has now hit the charts. Dolovis (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~no independent coverage~~no evidence given in article of independent coverage in reliable sources besides charting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you on about?! There's loads of coverage. It's charted at number 4 in a country's national chart so is definitely notable per WP:NSONGS. Are you saying that all other singles which chart at number 4 or lower should also be deleted?! Mhiji (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:NSONGS - "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really explain why you think it should be deleted...? You are agreeing that it is notable then as it has "been ranked on national or significant music charts". Are you saying that you think it is unlikely ever to grow beyond a stub and so it should be merged into the Katy B article?! Mhiji (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep song is #4 on a major chart, which is almost unquestionably within the threshhold of WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charting single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close Charting single, plus the nominator has already asked to withdraw the article from consideration. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:Music.SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:21, 31 December 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! 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Dragon Magazine

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

Non-notable anthology volumes (don't remember if I had any articles in them, but that was about the time I was most active as a TSR writer). Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just started this one, and I guess I'd have liked more time to work on it. But, I'll recommend a redirect to Dragon (magazine) instead if that's not workable. BOZ (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the magazine is notable, these special issues really aren't. Their existance is already mentioned in the magazine article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon (magazine)#Special issues. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Petrov

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

Petrov seems to receive main notability from a bronze medal in 2001 at the Fina championships as part of the groups synchronized swimming (in a team of 8). That seems to be not enough for individual notability; at WP:notability (sports), swimming is not stated explicitly, so the general guideline should be followed: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject". I think that is far from established and a google search did find nothing indicating this as well... L.tak (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:NSPORTS cannot possibly cover every sport in existence, even ones like swimming that are following quite a bit (don't get me started on the lack of boxing/MMA guidance). That said, people who have competed at the highest level of their sport are usually deemed to be notable. If that holds here, a synchronized swimmer who's medaled in the world championships (which I assume are the highest level of competition outside the Olympics) should probably be considered notable, especially when the top Olympic-related sports I see covered at NSPORTS (track and field and figure skating) do mention their respective world championships. Swimming is a top-flight Olympic sport as well, and I believe it deserves similar treatment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify Agree with your inclusion criteria for individuals. But this is notability derived from competing on the highest level in a large group; and whether then every individual is automatically notable I would contest... L.tak (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in reply to L.tak above), what is the position of other team sport competitors? I've had a look at a random selection of (field) hockey player biographies and it seems that if they competed at at least one summer Olympic games (as part of teams of 11 + substitutes) then they get an article. The same is also true possibly for Commonwealth Games players (although I didn't find enough of these to be sure). Although I didn't find any articles where notability was asserted solely for competition in world championships, my sample size was only about 20 British and Indian players, so it is possible that they are there but I didn't pick them. Whatever the case, it would seem fairest to treat competitors in one team sport (swimming) the same as competitors of another (hockey). Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an athlete competing at the highest level in her sport and winning a medal in the World Championship for her sport. WP:NSPORT applies to members of teams in team sports as well as individuals in individual sports. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leading firms by sector and market share

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

The term "leading firm" is POV and not well-defined - for example, the first subsection says it counts "not only sales, but all the activity of the companies", whatever that means. The list itself is useless, having no figures in it at all, and it's been completely unsourced since it was created 2.5 years ago. Contrast this with the useful list List of companies by revenue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's arguments. Ill-defined, unsourced and not even a single "market share" stat to establish the order (which would be bound to change over time).--24.201.13.148 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article subject is potentially highly notable (and interesting), the article as it stands is a travesty, not merely because it is completely unsourced and uncited, and because the information within it is in the main factually incorrect, but because the metrics used are so poorly defined and the list is so partial and biased.

There are many ways of measuring the leading firms in a sector - e.g. by turnover/market share, market capitalisation, profits or assets - and in many cases many ways of defining exactly what the sector is e.g. does it include suppliers, is banking a single sector or should it be broken down into retail and investment banking etc. These key issues must be addressed if this topic is to be dealt with in anything approaching an encyclopedic manner. Furthermore we have sections for cosmetics and printers, which are in reality small sub sectors, but key sectors such as IT hardware, Oil and Gas, Software, Media, Tobacco, Telecommunications, Support Services etc have been ignored. The flaws in the article at present are so fundamental that nothing is capable of salvage. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jackson (British musician)

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

Some vague claims to notability through being a former member of both QueenAdreena and Juno Reactor meant that the earlier prod was (correctly) declined. However, I cannot find any reliable sources that the subject of the article meets the notability criteria set out at either WP:MUSIC or the general notability guideline, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete member of notable bands, but search shows that he is not notable on his own. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Simpson

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

Vague claims to notability in the article do not meet WP:MUSIC as notability is not inherited. I'd welcome your thoughts on this, thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no sources for him or for any of his bands or other work (none of which are asserted to be notable in the article). Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources exist on the subject. Abductive (reasoning) 10:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bo-Kyung (Singer)

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP. Non-notable game show contestant. Appears to be a contestant on a Korean adaptation of an American Idol style show. Didn't even make it into the top 10 finalists on the show. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear cut WP:BAND failure; didn't place high enough within the competition, no notable releases, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:25, 31 December 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nataly Andria

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

I don't believe that this singer is notable, but think the article deserves wider input. She was a finalist on an American Idol-like television show in Madagascar, and I can find a few articles about her[20][21][22], but nothing that I think rises to the level of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. (Sources are generally in French, BTW.) She has only ~65,000 visits to her myspace, to give a rough measure of her popularity. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would say Myspace hits is poor measure of popularity. How many people in Madagascar even can access her profile? I don't understand French well enough to properly evaluate notability of this artist, but it is worth mentioning that she is a subject of at least two articles by a major(?) newspaper L'Express de Madagascar (links provided by the nominator above). Julius Sahara (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Confidential

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

Original AFD closed as no consensus. Previous concerns from that AFD was that it wasn't notable and thought to be a vanity page.

I can find no reliable sources to verify the article. It just seems like another blog on Blogspot, and fails WP:WEB guidelines. Mattg82 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can't find any notability, its an advert for someone's blog. Passionless (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (A Christmas Carol)

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

Is the character of Scrooge's nephew really deserving of his own article? At the very least, I could see a merge or redirect into the main Christmas Carol article. But Fred, AFAIK, has no singular impact on literary or popular culture. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roscelese (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering nominating this myself. Unlike Ebeneezer Scrooge, Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim and the three Ghosts, Fred has had little impact on future works. In fact, its not uncommon in adaptions to gloss over Fred's character or simply ignore him. Fezziwig faces a similar problem. If someone can find some sources (non-trivally) commenting on the character, I'd be more than happy to change my opinion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge into Ebenezer Scrooge? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I fear it may look like clutter if Fred has his own section on Scrooge's page. That said, are there enough characters in A Christmas Carol to make a List of A Christmas Carol characters? That'd solve a few problems. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 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 incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Miss Representation Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Representation

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

Per WP:TOSOON, fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a few weeks per the available coverage of this documentary found in multiple reliable sources.[23] I feel that its nomination may have been a bit hurried, as it was being actively edited[24] to address concerns before and after being templated for deletion, and up until it was sent to AFD... only one hour and 18 minutes after its creation.[25] As the film will debut at Sundance Film Festival in a few weeks, we can keep this one safe and warm while it waits. And while in the incubator, perhaps the author (or others)[26] will add the sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for now. The film may eventually end up falling short of NF and GNG guidelines but it might reach those thresholds by the end of this month at Sundance. If it does, it would be beneficial to be able to move the article from incubation into mainspace without losing any previously added material. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BMTC routes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direction based BMTC routes

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

I had nominated the article List of AC buses Bangalore for deletion. In the discussion this user stated that Wikipedia is not a public transport info page. So on the same criteria, I have nominated this article for deletion. It contains route info of BMTC. Abhishek191288 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of this BMTC can be merged to a single topic...--...Captain......Tälk tö me 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and this article is just a directory. WP is not supposed to be a "complete exposition of all possible details" and a list of bus routes is not encyclopedic to me. Are there any secondary sources which would give notability to a list of bus routes? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to BMTC routes. Precedent clearly shows that lists of bus routes in a city/town/region/etc are notable, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMTC routes in the past week. However I cannot see any reason why this needs to be a standalone article rather than integrated with the main BMTC routes list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BMTC routes as per Thryduulf. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people

AfDs for this article:

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

This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Keep: A glance at the linked biographies show that the listed people are indeed of British-Asian origin. If the problem is of sourcing, that isn't too hard to fix. --Ragib (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've wavered on several occasions about whether it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia, and I can understand and sympathise with the reasons for this nomination. But I'm not sure I agree with it. It looks like a list version of Category:British people of South Asian descent to me, which would be allowed per WP:CLN. I don't think the full stricture of BLP policy applies because the most rigorous version of BLP is about protecting living people from contentious information about them. In most cases, to call someone "British Asian" is neither contentious nor negative, but simply factual. I don't believe most reasonable people would object to calling, say, Sanjeev Bhaskar or Anita Rani "British Asians". I think the reasons leading to this nomination are fixable, and I think AfD is not for cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm of a similarly wavering opinion on classifying people according to ethnicity. However, this nomination is more about the lack of sources than the classification itself. I think Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality needs to be considered here. Classifying people without sources is the problem in this case. The lists have been tagged as unsourced for some time but nothing has been done to address this. The alternative would be to remove all unsourced entries, but since both lists are completely unsourced, that would leave us with two blank articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshall, you say that "I don't think the full stricture of BLP policy applies because the most rigorous version of BLP is about protecting living people from contentious information about them". I agree that this might be true of many people on these lists, but how about Michael Fassbender's inclusion at List of British people with German ancestry? His mother was born in Northern Ireland but sources describe him as Irish, and I think in that context it's a violation of BLP to include him on a list of British people. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone wondered why I've only nominated these two articles, it's because they had previously been up for deletion. I have also proposed that the following be deleted using WP:PROD:

Together, these are all of the completely unsourced lists from Category:Lists of British people by origin. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking, from your remarks, that if I sourced one or two of these, the whole basis of the nomination would be invalidated?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then, I sourced ~~one~~ some.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Isn't this sort of thing better handled by categories? Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But by that logic, *all* list pages can be replaced by categories ... do you make that claim for all such articles? (including featured lists?) --Ragib (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guideline about this, which is at WP:CLN. Basically, it says that the fact that we have categories doesn't mean we shouldn't have lists, even for the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 02:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what's next, a list of Chinese European people?SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why not, if such a group exists that identifies itself as Chinese Europeans? There is already a List of Chinese Americans. --Ragib (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not because most of the time, people included in such a list do not identify themselves as "Chinese European" Bulldog123 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kind of stupid, but does not seem to violate any WP policies, including BLP.Borock (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion on the BLP noticeboard seems to be that these type of lists are a BLP issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with S Marshall's comment above. Ethnicity (in most cases, at least) should not be viewed as the kind of negative information that BLP was created to deal with. Its original concern was to ensure proper sourcing, and to remove unsourced negative statements, but it seems to be turning into some kind of bureaucratic monster that has leaked into many other areas of content determination as well. It's too often used as a bludgeon in deletion discussions that have nothing to do with sourcing an article statement or negative information. There are a lot of people who simply don't like these kinds of lists regardless of how well sourced they are.
The list is certainly verifiable. It does not (and should not) include anyone who does not already have an article. First step, anyone whose article does not support their inclusion in this list should be removed from this list. Second step, the sources used in those articles to support their status as British Asians should be migrated into this list. I don't agree with the urgent need to delete this when it is fixable, regardless of what has been said on the BLP noticeboard (just another forum). AFDs are useful for testing the local consensuses that develop in such niches against a wider community, so we can see how a broader community really wants to apply policies and guidelines and how to test their consequences. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. No validation for why any of this information is encyclopedically notable. For 90%+ of the list's entries, this is pure WP:TRIVIA. If anyone wants to make a relevant list of peoples... there's no reason it can't be included in something like British Germans on a small-scale, case-by-case basis, explaining why such a classification is notable to the person. Bulldog123 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments by Postdlf.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the people are notable, a list of them buy any reasonable characteristic that has any relevance to their notability is appropriate DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. being interviewed doesn't make you notable and some decent sourcing is required to make this notable. Since these haven't been put forward the outcome is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Pinotti

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. An author and a journalist, to be sure, but not one of note. Most sources are to vanity sites. jps (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an important author in Italy. He was interviewn by History Channel regarding the discovery of Nostradamus Vaticinia codex. --REDTURTLE 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)... Pinotti in RAI-3 (National Television) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarlo Rossi (talk • contribs)
- Can you point to some good independent sources that we can use to establish this and write an article? Interviews on credulous History Channel "documentaries" don't really cut it. See WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per REDTURTLE. History Channel is easily found, meeting WP:Author. CPerked (talk) 05:05, 31 December 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) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Good

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was not a principal violinist in an orchestra (see WP:MUSIC) and notice of his UFO-beliefs do not extend beyond the ufology community. jps (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unverified. Claims in the article that might make him notable are unverified and are tagged "citation needed". No independent references at all are provided. He wrote some books but I could find no reviews of them or of him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some reliable non trivial sources are found, he only seems to get passing mentions or name dropped in sources I've seen. Mattg82 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Watson

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. No notice outside of the WP:FRINGE community, therefore we cannot write a Wikipedia article about him. jps (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per references.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, no. That's not really a valid keep rationale. The references in the article are not to WP:FRINGE#Independent sources and cannot be used to establish external notability. We need independent sources that can identify this character as notable. jps (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article was created by User:Magonia, who in this edit remarked that image added someone put wrong pic of me on site - looks like WP:VANITY. Autarch (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:SPA, and of course WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Disagreement over whether the articles meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. No assertions of notability. Previous debate called for a delete, was this page recreated in error? jps (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the January, 2009 debate and reading the current article, I think that these articles are about two entirely different people who happen to share the same name. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Although both claiming to be born in Edmonton, the deleted article was about a photographer who was interested in UFOs, whereas this one is about a musician. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has had national news coverage: see the source I added, which says that he "garnered a sheaf of positive press clippings" for his 1981 album. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - after checking out the Afd discussion, the article, sourcs, and doing a quick google search I found reasons to believe this article is not failing any Wikipedia guideline.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please tell us sources found during your google search? also as confirmed above the previous AfD was about a different person. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of indepth coverage. Gnews shows mostly event listings but lacks indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Hall

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I cannot find sources independent of the UFO-community which would can vouch for something which would confer notability on him. jps (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly The Washington Post is independent of the UFO community. jps, did you read their lengthy and respectful story about Hall, which establishes his notability? It's linked right there in the reference section. I have no interest myself in "Ufo-ology" but this man seems notable to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it, but it's basically a puff-piece news-of-the-weird obituary as far as I can tell. It doesn't really lend itself to notability in the classic sense, I'd say. jps (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Joshua, you see a puff piece, written as "news-of-the-weird". I see a 19 paragraph article, written with barely a trace of irony or mockery, accompanied by a photograph, that describes a man's life work quite respectfully. Let me repeat that I don't share this man's beliefs in any way, shape or form, but the Washington Post is a reputable newspaper, and this article goes a long way toward establishing his notability, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's from the local section and is serving as an obituary. I imagine the journalist was sent out on a junket to interview this guy and had the story sitting around when he kicked the bucket. Then he published it. I've seen plenty of these kinds of parochial "features" in other local papers. The reason that the article doesn't establish his notability is because it clearly indicates that his personality and ideas do not see the light of day outside the UFO community. They tied in irrelevant commentary from Seth Shostack to fill it out — no, if this is what you think passes for a good source for establishing notability these days, I'm pretty sure we're on different pages. jps (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Joshua, let me remind you that WP:RS says that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable". You are free to imagine this journalist's junket but you offer no evidence in support of your personal theory. Where do our policies say that articles in "local sections" of mainstream news sources are assumed to be unreliable? Or obituaries for that matter? The funny thing about our disagreement here is that I agree with about 99% of what is on your user page. I am personally totally opposed to pseudoscience, but I am also 100% in favor of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Yes, we seem to be on different pages in this particular debate. I am on the page of established Wikipedia policy regarding notability and the neutral point of view. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to chime in. Cullen328 (talk)
        It is not required that someone's "personality and ideas" must "see the light of day" (whatever that means) in order for that person to be considered notable. Some cranks are notable. It isn't our job to censor notable cranks out of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, it absolutely is required that sources be WP:FRINGE#Independent sources if we are going to have an article about a person. We cannot write articles based on crank-sources alone or even based on secondary sources that rely solely on crank sources (which is essentially what the WaPo article is, IMHO). jps (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if the article on Hall is going to be deleted on the grounds that he is of no interest "outside the UFO community", then I don't see how one can justify having Wikipedia articles on other "Ufologists" such as Jerome Clark and Kevin Randle. If - as I suspect - the goal here is to eliminate "crank" topics like UFOs from Wikipedia, then why have any UFO-related articles? Hall was a well-known figure in Ufology, the Washington Post is a "mainstream" source, and Hall did write two books on women in the Civil War (one published by the University Press of Kansas). At his death I know that several UFO-related websites quoted from this Wikipedia article in their comments about him, so clearly at least some people are using it. The article does need more sources, but I'm dubious about deleting him simply because a poster thinks he's not "notable" outside of Ufology (how many other Wikipedia articles are bios of people who aren't notable outside their chosen field?). It seems like a double standard to me - if you're notable in a "legitimate" field your article is OK, if you're notable in a field many people consider "pseudoscience" then your article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.187.153 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that Wikipedia does have a category labeled Ufologists, and Hall's article provides a link to that category. If Wikipedia considers Ufologists to be notable enough to have their own category, then how can Hall be deleted for not being notable? Just a thought.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper. CPerked (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As is the New York Times. I've added two more references concerning Hall, the CIA and UFOs - one from the New York Times, and another from a book about the CIA. I've also removed peacock words and NPOV language. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 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! 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1114 AH

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

Stub that is redundant of 1702/1703. The entire scheme at Category:Years AH seems completely useless to me, so I'm nominating this article to get feedback on that as well--if other users agree that these articles are not useful, then I will nominate them wholesale for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite all calendrical systems currently in use should have year articles that direct people to pages under the CE (Gregorian) system where information can be found. It would also help people looking up dates under the AH (or other) system(s) if they don't know the conversion formula. So this article should explain the equivalent period under the CE calendar. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have the start date and end date in Gregorian, with the Gregorian years' start and end dates also in AH, and the Gregorian new year in AH as well, to inform people of which article they are looking for. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How can this information be claimed to be "completely useless"? As someone who uses the Gregorian calendar I find the content of such articles very useful encyclopedic information, which tells be what year is being referred to when I encounter a different calendar. I agree with the IP editor above that the articles would be even better if they had precise start and end date conversions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to have articles for each year in the Gregorian calendar I can not think of a reason not to have the same in the Islamic calendar. The information might be useful to someone. Borock (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response They will just reiterate what's at the Gregorian articles. Why would we have identical articles for different calendar systems? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I give you a year in AH, can you tell me the article under Gregorian it is for (without looking up a conversion formula, just do it in your head from personal knowledge)? If not, then clearly there is a need for a navigation page. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation page, maybe 2-3000 no, I think not. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete (or re-purpose), this is a worthy idea, but duplicating births/deaths/events for years in different calenders is currently a non starter. I was about to reluctantly AfD this scheme when I happened across this AfD. The article at AH should cover exact conversions. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If a reader comes across a mention of the year 1114 AH, and, not knowing what it means, decides to look it up in an encyclopedia, then what do you think should be the result? Surely it's better to tell that reader what Gregorian years this corresponds to rather than to present a page with an invitation to create an article, which is what will happen if this is deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then these should be redirected to a conversion page. Reywas92^Talk 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (or maybe redirect to a conversion page), and all other AH year and century pages should be as well. There is no reason to duplicate the information concerning calendars. Reywas92^Talk 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no encyclopedic reason to have a separate page for every possible unit of measure conversion on a numeric scale. If there is a reason that this particular time period is of importance, then YES by all means (say, something of significance about the time period 1114 AH). But I don't see that in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Pointless since the Gregorian year articles already have the equivalents listed. But we should consider creating a redirect for the different years pointing to the equivalent Gregorian year for convenience. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pope

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

Unable to find coverage of this professor/author in any reliable sources independent of the subject. He has written one novel, two collections of short stories and has had several short stories published. I can find no reviews or commentary of any of his writing nor about him. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, nor WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His interview with Raymond Carver was certainly interesting, but that's a separate matter. Seems to have attracted no attention. EEng (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reviews of his books, so it looks like he does not pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not true that there are no reviews of his books. Here's one from Publishers Weekly [27]. Anybody who has published books that have been nationally reviewed, as well as stories in many of the leading literary magazines, meets notability standards. The article does have problems: too much trivia about his early life, not enough inclusion of the literary documentation on Pope that is out there. The article just needs a rewriting and better sourcing. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, author meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG guidelines.SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take us beyond bare assertion and point to actual evidence? EEng (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a single one paragraph review meets none of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and for WP:GNG multiple sources are generally expected. At this point we know of one collection of his short stories, nothing else. J04n(talk page) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly is the industry standard, and all of their reviews are about this length, even for bestsellers. Also, this review is for Pope's novel, Jack's Universe, rather than the story collection. An author who's been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, who has two books out from a legitimate press, who has published in many of the leading journals, who has done a high-profile interview with Raymond Carver, etc. etc., is certainly notable. Qworty (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source. It turns out that the story collection, Private Acts, also got a write-up in Publishers Weekly [28] Qworty (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S.). this can be created when there are some secondary sources out there. Until then this falls under CRYSTAL Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9)

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

Article lacks any secondary sources for "season 9" this early in the process everything is WP:CRYSTAL and will be for some time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will not be any substantial secondary sources until we start the official broadcast of the season. If you look at the previous seasons you see that 90% of the references are post facto references. Based on the facts that

The series page is already pointing at the page
A verifyable fact that they were casting in November of this year that is not making any PR claims
In order to have a discussion regarding the way certain components of the season's article will be set up via the talk page, a main article page must be created
Based on previous seasons ratings it is highly unlikeley that Fox will elect not to broadcast this after putting out a call for contestants.

I wanted to get the ball rolling on discussions for the content, but because I created the talk page without a Article it got speedied overnight without a refund. Now we have a 2nd editor jumping the gun to kick the page out when it's 99% positive that we'll have the page in wikipeida. Let's go over the WP:BEFORE list.

Did not attempt to improve the page before PRODing or putting up for AFD
I missed adding a stub template to the article so apparently it meets a significantly higher standard than other newly created articles
Topic is notable enough in that it's the 9th production series of a significant Reality TV series.
No maintanance tags were applied before nominating the article
Prior to being nominated for AFD, there were links from Season 8 and the main series page. I think that qualifies for having enough context to see it's usage.
No assertions of lack of sources.
Did not attempt to engage author of article before reaching for the deletion button.

WP:CRYSTAL is invalid. Read the policy section again before laying the name out. Specifically, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. Hasteur (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event is sure to happen considering they have a contract for three more seasons those are sure to happen too. Why not have an article for those as well? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Based on the fact that I haven't seen a casting call, I think those are probably too soon and still speculative. It could happen that Ramsay looses his cool and burns down the entire facility (causing the contract to be cancelled). For season based shows my feeling is to not construct the next season's page untill the final episode of the current season is complete and no threats of cancellation are made. It's crystal based, but less hazy than creating pages soley based on the contracts that have been announced. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination is premature.SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom until season 9 starts airing. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. I thought the points raised by the nominator were thouroughly rebutted. Can you provide guidance as to what portion of the nominator's statement you still find valid? Hasteur (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:PERNOM as the original rationalle has been discussed against. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) until such time that this article can be fleshed out with secondary sources. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not accept an independent reporting of the call for contestants as a qualified secondary source? Hasteur (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the casting website a WP:RS? If so then I'm OK with the article being kept. You can ask on WP:RS/N if needed. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A casting call is still a WP:PRIMARY source and is exact duplicate of what was posted on Fox.com. We can not build an article solely on primary sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep will be plenty of source shortly, and by then people can have built up. Turnstitle (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Turnstitle has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Lost (Four Freshmen album)

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

Contested prod; subject is non-notable as per WP:NALBUMS. Article is unreferenced and does not explain significance. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's understandable if there's not a lot of sources online for something released more than a half century ago, and the album was likely somewhat of a hit in its time, the Freshmen being at their commercial peak and having won a Grammy the prior year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you don't seem so sure when you claim that the subject was "likely somewhat of a hit in its time". Anyway, such a statistic must be proved using "a reliable, published source", as per WP:V. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Four Freshmen were as popular a vocal group, especially in jazz, but also among the general listening public, fifty years ago as any vocal group is today. --Alan W (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is an excellent justification for having an article on The Four Freshmen, but does not in itself justify there being an article on one of their records. 82.153.194.45 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. WP:NALBUMS states that "if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources", then the album can have its own article. However, what of the "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" part? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested, pre-AfD discussion occurred at Talk:Love Lost (Four Freshmen album). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Usually I would be in favor of keeping an article like this, for the reasons in the Keep votes above. However, in this case I don't think anyone can vote with full information because the article does not say if this was a studio album in which the band had full input, or one of those shifty compilations or re-releases without band input, as was fairly common in those times. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I think the objections above are reasonable but not insurmountable. I have fixed the problems with verification of notability and sourcing. Guoguo12, please take a look, and I hope that this discussion can now be closed. --Alan W (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for working on the article. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: Problems have been addressed by Alan W. Please close as soon as possible, unless additional discussion warrants otherwise. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayak Thiik

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter. The article is superficially sourced, but the sources are from the usual user-submitted (such as last.fm) or personal websites, her only album never charted, the singles she allegedly performed never charted, and the citations to charting singles are all pieces on which she apparently sang backup vocals or claims "co-writer" credit. Google News has ZERO hits for her. Fails the GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. Ravenswing 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might consider something if she'd sung backing vocals for a same artist for a string of charting releases, but contributing backing vocals to two top 40 singles is far from enough in my books. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudpung (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Grace González}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enneagram of Personality/FAQ}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsuichiro Kaizu}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsuichiro Kaizu}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Kids' Choice Awards}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto Anything}}