Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:02, 23 July 2010

< 15 July	17 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator - I'll merge it. SnottyWong ^chat 14:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Mr. Bean

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

This single episode of a TV show (which is really just a "best of" episode) is not notable enough for its own article. Fails WP:GNG. Any relevant info can be merged to List of Mr. Bean episodes. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close just merge it, it can't be deleted if we merge anyways so there is really nothing to do. A quick search isn't turning up any reviews so anyone reverting would have to find something to have a chance of keeping it. For the record, I support the merge unless someone can find sources that cause this to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Why are we even here? Be Wp:BOLD and merge it. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of Mr. Bean episodes. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the On Broadway 1982

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

Does this bootleg recording meets the notability criteria for albums? Canniba loki 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Undecided) - This one is confusing as I can't figure out if the album is actually a bootleg or maybe an old official release that was poorly promoted. But the fact that I can't figure this out after a whole mess of searching might indicate a problem with notability, as the album has not been discussed (at least online) beyond some fan blogs and download sites. But on the other hand, a record company of unknown legitimacy is releasing the live album on CD later this year and it will be sold through real retailers like Amazon (see [1]). I'm undecided thanks to all this confusion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lack of any coverage in reliable sources is a big problem. I am not sure of what to mack of the Amazon listing. It shows this as a November 2010 release, but as an MP3 release. so not really an album in the traditional sense. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just an MP3 album, but does anyone care much about physical CD's anymore? It's an important album by a major band. It's for sale at amazon.com, which I guess indicates that if it was originally a bootleg it's probably been legitimized at some point, as I doubt that Amazon sells illegal material, at least not knowingly. So that makes it part of the band's published corpus and thus as legitimate as article material as any of their albums, more or less. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator and due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources.--Canniba loki 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per Herostratus - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to World Congress of Philosophy. partial duplicate DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International congress of philosophy

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

duplicate article of World Congress of Philosophy Greg Bard (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close just be WP:BOLD and redirect this. No need for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the correctly formatted International Congress of Philosophy to World Congress of Philosophy and I have requested speedy deletion of International congress of philosophy.Greg Bard (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:ATHLETE does require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", which are not provided here. The sources which are provided appear not to contain any information regarding Peter Chamis. Without appropriate evidence of notability from reliable sources an article does not meet WP:ATHLETE. SilkTork *^YES! 21:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chamis (soccer)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:ATHLETE, as the subject has never played in a top-level league, and there's no significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline as all sources are team rosters. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references is the official United States Soccer Federation Pro Player Registry. This is not a team roster, it is the most official means of recognizing professional soccer players in the United States. Additionally, there are many WP athletes that play in the exact same leagues mentioned. Based on this, I feel that the article is valid.Longdecember (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an athlete is professional doesn't mean they're notable; many professional leagues are far from the top level in their sport. And if other athletes who play in these leagues have articles, that doesn't mean they should have articles, unless they're notable for some other reason or played in a top league once; see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. It seems that what is considered notable leaves some room for discussion. In this case, this athlete is a documented professional soccer player who played in the 2nd and 3rd Divisions of American professional soccer, which is notable by those in the soccer community, however, by the average person researching in WP maybe not so notable. Additionally, the noteworthiness of this article is consistent with others I’ve researched on WP, i.e. Matt Bobo and based on this, I’d like to see the article remain. Whatever the decision, my intent is solely to contribute to WP in a manner than provides accurate information and enhances the ability of those who are researching.Longdecember (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the WP:ATHLETE, under the sub-section the relates to soccer, it states that athletes that play in one of the fully professional leagues that are listed, including the USL 2nd Division which is where this athlete played, are generally regarded as notable. This concludes that this league is recognized as fully professional, although not top level, i.e. Major League Soccer, and thus warrants notability. Please review the WP:ATHLETE soccer sub-section for professional leagues in the United States to see the aforementioned information. Longdecember (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played in an alleged "fully professional league" at WP:ATHLETE. Eliteimp (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources supplied link to anything I can find on Chamis except the one showing he was a 'registered professional' (and doesn't show whether he ever played). There are some mouse droppings out there, but every turn I take I'm greeted by dead links. GSearch Chamis at each of the domains in references provide noting except for DePauls who seem to have had a massive site clean-out as both returns are to "page not found". I would like to see some proper verification of something. And does anyone know for sure if USISL D-3 Pro League was fully pro in 2002 as it appears to have been 4 mini leagues split geographically according to 2002 USISL D-3 Pro League--ClubOranje^T 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive answer, but most American sports split all of their leagues geographically, even the NFL. --W F C-- 06:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly, categorically and unambiguously passes WP:NSPORTS/WP:ATHLETE, by virtue of 37 games in the fully professional USL. However, there is no indication that he passes the far more important general notability guide. --W F C-- 06:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these 37 games in the USL shown? the 20 for Chicago were in Premier Development League - not fully professional. The 18 Royals appearances may qualify...but other than the claim here, I find no verification. (Either way it doesn't add up to 37!)--ClubOranje^T 07:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I got to 37! It's immaterial anyway. Either the infobox is a hoax, or he has played in the USL and therefore passes ATHLETE/NSPORTS. But even assuming that he does, that doesn't automatically make him notable. As for finding verification, I haven't gone to the trouble on the grounds that I see it as irrelevant to my opinion on the AfD. Regards, --W F C-- 02:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a thorough search, it seems as though the USL does not maintain archieved statistics (or at least dosen't publish them openly) making it difficult to cite accurately. As a former sport writer in this athlete's hometown, I might have access to actual print articles with statistics, otherwise, the search continues. I would still like to reiterate that based on the WP:ATHLETE criteria, this athlete does meet the notability guidelines as he did play in a fully professional league which is recognized by WP and cited accordingly. I realize there are some very good arguments and comments by many on the board, however, to deviate from the fact that this athlete does meet the notability guidelines for WP:ATHLETE would be inconsistent with other articles on the same topic. I would like to concur that this article could use some additional citations and verifications, however to eliminate it at this point would be pre-mature in my opinion. Recommendation is for additional time to locate sources to support a good article and make it much better for future people doing research. Longdecember (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretend for a moment I'm not very bright... where is the verification "cited accordingly" that he played in a fully professional league?--ClubOranje^T 11:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not entirely sure this was a good faith nomination, given the nominator's commments on several Lithuania-related talk pages. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania

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

This organisaton is not notable. It is also not good to have a link to their website, because it might be factually inaccurate Nefesf9 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Organization founded in 1988 and publisher of a journal. Difficult to see why this is being challenged. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found no hits on google news archives and while I did not check all of the hits on google.books everyone I did check was simply another book by Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. Until actually proven to have third party coverage, fails WP:N and delete Active Banana (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Speedy in fact. The center appears to have been commissioned by the Lithuanian government. The Centre appears to be referred to by many outside publications [2]. There's a ton of hits on Google and Google books. If someone's not seeing the evidence for notability of the center, they're just not willing to look. Also, I suspect that the nomination, as well as Active Banana's support for deletion is POV motivated as they are both involved in removing text cited to the center from several article (personally, atm, I have no opinion as to the Centre's reliability - but that's not the issue here, notability is).radek (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - those are the same hits I found. The hits include Wikipedia mirror Icon Inc and numerous books published by Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania itself. Can you actually identify any third party reliable sources? Active Banana (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what? Baltic Yearbook of International Law, published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Who is who in Lithuania: Lithuania's Achievements, 2004 published by Neolitas, Lithuania: the Bradt travel guide published by Bradt Travel Guides. And that's just the first 3. None of these are published by the organization itself nor are they Wikipedia mirrors and they are all 3rd party sources. What. the. hey. are. you. talking. about?radek (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will let the "significant content" and/or reputation of the publsihers for fact checking and accuracy of your examples speak for themselves. Active Banana (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A few sources to consider: http://www.lituanus.org/2009/09_3_06%20Latkovski.html ; http://www.travel-lithuania.com/pages/Vilnius/78/Museum_of_Genocide_Victims ; http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/links.php . I must admit it looks like a very odd nomination... these sources were really easy to find, and I'm sure someone who actually spoke any Lithuanian could find plenty more rather quickly. DubZog (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the reasons given above. Having a link to an official webpage is not an unusual practice in Wikiepedia articles. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a link to the official site is, in fact, encouraged. When the official webiste is the only "source" however, the article fails to meet WP:N in having significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Active Banana (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at http://books.google.com/books?id=faFmAAAAMAAJ&q=Genocide+and+Resistance+Research+Centre+of+Lithuania&dq=Genocide+and+Resistance+Research+Centre+of+Lithuania&hl=en&ei=7_pATKHXNMusOI6ixYkN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw and also the links I provided, before saying that there isn't any significant coverage by reliable third party sources again! DubZog (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says nothing about this organization. Try againActive Banana (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They only don't say anything about this organization if you're not even willing to read them! On http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/links.php there's the following passage of information: "The Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania is a state institution which investigates all manifestations of genocide and crimes against humanity, the persecution during the Soviet and Nazi occupations, and the armed and peaceful resistance to the occupations. It also gives juridical evaluations of the perpetrators of the reprisals and genocide, and immortalises the memory of the freedom fighters and genocide victims." On http://www.travel-lithuania.com/pages/Vilnius/78/Museum_of_Genocide_Victims it is said that the organization runs a museum. Also, the fact that this organization has published several books that appear on google books' review is an indication of notability. The situation is so clear-cut, that it should be a speedy keep, and Active Banana only seems to be keeping the discussion going for the reason of some personal disliking towards the organization. DubZog (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is becoming a transparent case of IDIDN'THEARTHAT.radek (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - expanded & ref'ed. Obviously notable and the nominations is very spurious. Renata (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Paul Cara

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

DELETE. Google News Archives reveal a small handful of passing/trivial mentions, but nothing to warrant or substantiate a biographical article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSERs first ("Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.") and fourth criterium ("Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.") In this case: L'oiseau et l'enfant. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, www.allmusic.com , usually a very reliable source on popular music, has an entry on Jean Paul Cara, and using google one can quickly find the following interview: http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/13996 DubZog (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:COMPOSER as demonstrated above, and some independent sources do exist. Robofish (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Musamies (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable composer, but as a BLP, it needs at least one more reliable source. Rescue. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows results. The first one is [3] which seems to establish notability quite well. Dream Focus 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Installation Guide

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

unremarkable wiki noq (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources. Borderline for speedy deletion as {{db-web}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is created by the authorised personnel of Schneider Electric which also holds all the copyrights of this WIKI:EIG (Electrical Installation Guide) and the paper version. The information found on this page is exactly similar to the WIKI-EIG and as mentioned by Schneider Eletcric. 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssudeep fr (talk • contribs)
Comment That is not a reason to keep the page - it does show however a WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the pages which contains similar information already exists on wikipedia but it is not as detailed and do not tackles all the issues and solutions concerning Electrical Installation. Therefore, this page which leads to the WIKI will be helpful. This wiki has been written by and for electrical engineers and in compliance with intarnational standards of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

There is no publicity of any products and even of the company itself (the logo of Schneider Electric is the size of 'Mediawiki logo' found on some of the pages of wikipedia and at the extreme bottom.) In addition, there is no mention of competitors too. The information is clearly explained with the diagram and has neutral view. You may visit the WIKI:EIG if you doubt about the authenticity and the neutral view. The WIKI:EIG is open for all to add and collaborate, whether it is competitors, installers or end users. Mssudeep fr (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the content of this article is focused on the Wiki. My own opinion is that the current wording is promotional in nature. "We all hope that you, the user, will find this wiki EIG genuinely helpful." The lede does state that "until 12/2009 [it was] an exclusive Schneider-Electric publication distributed through printing and internet". The book exists but I cannot find any indication that this is a notable book. But it may be so in its field. If there are sources that can demonstrate that this book is one of the fundmamental electrical engieneering texts, then it could be kept as an article with the focus ont he book rather than the promotion of a related wiki. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best it's based on a single source that may or may not fit WP:RS but in any case that source doesn't establish notability in any way. A google search for the term in the news yields 0 results. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are some of the websites which use WIKI EIG as their reference:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/switchgear
www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_portuguese/engineering_general/3840406-bolted_short_circuit_current.html
www.nooutage.com/vdrop.htm
www.educypedia.be/electronics/emc-emi.htm
www.educypedia.be/electronics/safety.htm
bubl.ac.uk/link/e/electricalengineering.htm

Mssudeep fr (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the line "We all hope that....". Also i would like to drag the attention of Whpq to the line next to "until 12/2009 [it was] an exclusive Schneider-Electric publication distributed through printing and internet", which is "The new WIKI-EIG is now allowing all external contribution for improvement and update. This is a major evolution towards neutral knowledge and exchange." Mssudeep fr (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pepperdine University. Consensus is that the show is not notable. The merge/redirect to Pepperdine University is a useful suggestion, though a relevant section would need to be built up on the college tv station within that article, and references found. I will delete and redirect the title as I am unclear on what can be merged. If someone would like me to userfy the material so they can use it to build an appropriate and sourced section within Pepperdine University, then please contact me. SilkTork *^YES! 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Randumb Show

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

student tv show. No indication of notability noq (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is apparently Award winning, and it looks like it would be reasonably notable for a college show if appropriately sourced. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. No sources cited, and searching has failed to produce any suitable coverage in independent sources. "Show is apparently Award winning" refers to college awards, not to significant outside awards. I am not sure what "looks like it would be reasonably notable for a college show" means, but if it means "notable relative to other college shows", then that is not the point: college shows are mostly not notable, and it needs the same sort of independent coverage to establish notability as any other subject. Also "looks like it would be reasonably notable ... if appropriately sourced" is not good enough. It needs to actually be sourced: we cannot keep it on the basis that it might be notable if it were sourced when in fact it isn't sourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Apparently award winning isn't sufficient without specific indications as to what awards were won to allow determination if those awards are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Pepperdine University - which surprisingly does not have any section about student activities, so perhaps one needs to be added. Otherwise, delete. The article is entirely Original Research, apparently written by one of the producers. There is absolutely nothing to indicate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo Group

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

Denise Goodwin Pace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is non-notable marketing company. Quite a big article but pretty much all of the refs are minor/'wire'/press releases/spammy. The article was created by the founder of the organisation herself--and is frequently edited by them as seen from the history--and this shows in the article. It is a 10kb lump of relentless advertising. WP:ADVERT and fails WP:ORG. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything reliable and non-trivial.. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From start — ....marketing communications and branding agency that brings together an Executive Roundtable of seasoned marketing, branding, creative, traditional, digital and mobile advertising, public relations and social media experts to work with a select list of international clients — to finish — The agency worked to build a brand for the organization that will empower people to prepare through information and connection, and to provide a dialogue.... — this is so floridly non-neutral that notability is a side issue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the given refs are insufficient and the hits on Gnews don't verify notability either. Dewritech (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender. No editors, including the nominator, are in favor of deletion, and the article has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Legend of Korra

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

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. The only evidence of this series even existing is a trademark filing and job listing by Viacom, neither listing any details about the show. Everything else has been speculation and rumors. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Sources look to confirm this pretty well and so WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't seem to apply. But really only toonzone would appear to be a solid RS. Hobit (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per deletion discussions at the article talkpage. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)^{Commented below}[reply]

What exactly in that argument is causing you to vote Keep? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above comment by Rehman. Azeez^talk 03:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avatar: The Legend of Aang; it clearly hasn't even come close to being in production yet, and it does fall squarely under WP:CRYSTAL. Anything could happen between now and even principle production. Creators could get run over by a bus. Merge to the main article until it actually is at least somewhat produced, same as we would do with a future film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to parent article as said by AnmaFinotera above. Expand on redirect later when necessary. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if you're going to keep any of the content. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a speedy closure of this deletion discussion. This is clearly now a merge/redirect discussion, and not a deletion. I will do the merging after closing of this discussion. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I say keep it you till September or October. Wait out the rumors and if there's nothing official by then just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcguti (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments above, I suggest temporarily turning the page into a redirect (to Legend of Aang) until considerable notability is gained. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Future spinoff. There just isn't enough to say about this at the moment to justify a separate article, and what is there is partly speculation. There's no need for a separate article on this at this time; it can always be restored when there's more information available. Robofish (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; merged, and redirected page to Last Airbender. This discussion can now be closed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Seeing as the general consensus is to redirect, and redirecting until the new series becomes notable seems like a viable option, I am changing my vote as the nominator from delete to redirect. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FCoTR

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

Contested prod. As the article states, it is new and "information is sparse at this time". It may get significant one day but as of now it is still non-notable. The blog doesn't count as a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. It is a one day-old article on a brand new specification. Yes, information is sparse, but there is already a draft spec available for 802.5qZ. That's really all you have to read to see exactly how real this is. There is also this article with an in-depth analysis and a Wikibon page about an upcoming peer incite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.93.60 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) — 198.134.93.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete There are some sources from where it was proposed, but nothing else yet. Seems likely to be notable shortly, but... Hobit (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entry asserts its own lack of notability. And who the hell uses token ring anymore? Hairhorn (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and let the author sort out the sources and put them in the article before putting it back into mainspace. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, FCoTR (and it's related blogs and web sites) is a tech parody and does not belong here. Or is there is a special category for tech humor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.203.130 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing to make an article out of here. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, sourced only to blogs. I don't have the techie expertise to know if it is humor or serious, but either way it does not have the required sourcing to remain on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nemesis Theory (band)

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

Non-notable band. No references are provided, and I could find none. No records on notable labels, no notable tours or members, etc. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this. There are some local Seattle mentions, but not much.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Who is that dude channeling? Rob Halford? Drmies (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Three years old and no references section. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The notability of lists can be dificult to assess. We have generally be more tolerant of lists than we have of articles, and this can encourage the formation of lists that may be rather too specific. WP:SALAT gives some guidance. While WP:NOTDIRECTORY is often cited when somebody feels a list is not notable, it should be bourne in mind that we do have featured lists, and that a list of bus routes can have potential, see List of bus routes in Manhattan and List of bus routes in London. A guideline on bus lists was drawn up - Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide, but withdrawn as the topic was seen as not encyclopedic. However, there are a number of bus lists - Category:Lists of bus routes, which shows some interest in the topic - and an interest that could probably do with some guidance. The consensus here is that this particular list is not notable enough, but that does not imply that all bus lists are non-notable. Each list should be assesed individually. SilkTork *^YES! 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pace bus routes

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

As noted in the talk for that page, it is not encyclopedic in that it violates Wikipedia is not a directory; it is not properly maintained, and current information is available at the agency's home page. -Busjack (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If one wanted to know the numbers and names of the routes on Pace, one would be better served to look them up on Pace's official web site at pacebus.com, which is where all the information in this article came from anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's admittedly in poor shape, but lists of bus routes are a valid encyclopedic topic; using similar pages as a model, the routes could be converted into a table with the route number, name, and termini for starters. There are plenty of these sort of articles for other bus systems and cities, several of which have survived AfD, so consensus doesn't appear to support the idea that a list of bus routes is a directory by nature. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_routes_in_London then? I see two things going against each other here... firstly this information is undoubtedly useful and verifiable, it's also easy to find several references from other sources..... yet.... what if wikipedia had lists of all bus routes eventually? Who could ever maintain these and keep them up to date?DubZog (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that articles within a certain area will require regular maintenance to keep it up-to-date is not a reason to delete those articles. We have thousands of articles on active professional athletes which require regular updates to keep their statistics accurate, yet we still keep these articles as notable. Also keep in mind that only certain large cities have extensive bus systems; there would never be an unmanageable number of lists as long as this one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You wrote: "Also keep in mind that only certain large cities have extensive bus systems; there would never be an unmanageable number of lists as long as this one." Based on the information from your user page, I assume that you're from the States, where public transport systems are considerably less common, than in some parts of the world. In Europe, for example, it is commonplace for cities of even a few hundred thousand people to have notable bus systems. For example Tallinn, a city of ca 400 000 people, has ca 60 bus routes, 8 trolleybus routes and 4 streetcar routes. Pärnu, a city of ca 45 000 people, has a bus network of ca 20 routes. In addition to that there are extensive regional bus networks as well, so really quite a lot to write about. And mind you, whereas lots of people are really into sports, I can't see public transport having enough "fans" to keep all those articles up to date. You are entitled to disagree, but to me it seems like a task similar to keeping an up-to-date list of all people living in London: extremely difficult to achieve, yet... not really worth the effort. DubZog (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's actually not all that different in the US, aside from the absence of streetcars; most sizable cities do have a network of some kind, and there are several regional networks as well (including, to a limited extent, Pace itself). I'm not positive that all of these need standalone lists, as the smaller ones could possibly be merged into the main article, but Pace is a larger network to begin with. (Incidentally, Tallinn's list of bus routes previously survived an AfD FWIW.) And public transport has more interested editors than you think; note that there are numerous featured lists of rapid transit stations. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, well.. it clearly seems to be the case that in general, such lists have survived AfD, so if this is what we want to go by, this one should as well. I'm personally still not convinced that this kind of information is encyclopeadic, but that is, I guess, a matter of taste. DubZog (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a good starting point. More details of each route, etc. would be helpful in the future. As I recall these don't change all that much too often and there will be some detailed discussion of some routes in RSes and lots of trivial coverage. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above, I still don't see any indication that this gives information not available to a link to the Route Finder, and especially no one stepping up to maintain it. Busjack (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) it has potential, B) no one actively maintaining it isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add that no one has refuted that this violates Wikipedia is not a directory, and is a fairly useless directory at that, even if it were maintained, which it is not. Busjack (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It currently is nothing but a directory, and a bad one at that. But it has massive room for expansion and the PACE system has huge coverage, often at the route level. Hobit (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it violates WP is not a directory. And, while I see this prompted Catalyst to do something are you going to maintain it? Busjack (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument that wikipedia is not a directory is a compelling one. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no listed References, and most of the Table is blank. Anyone in need of this information should definitely go to Pace Transit's own Website instead. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Studios

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

Unverified article on non-notable studio. Follow the google links and you find only mentions of the place (and not that many); there is no significant discussion of the studio in reliable sources that proves its notability. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notability TwoRiversWC (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Vincent Saykanic

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

A lawyer doing what a lawyer does is not particularly notable. Given the edit history, this page hints of self-promotion. bd2412 T 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - no significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources. Promotional.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of white nationalist organizations

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

Redundant list; mostly duplicates content already found in template: white nationalism.Stonemason89 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problem to have both a list and a category. Info on the list seems both notable and of interest.Borock (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this list is currently in a poor state, but that's not a reason to delete and it could become a useful navigational list. I'll flag for rescue. Claritas § 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Templates, lists and categories are all legitimate navigational aids, even though they tend to get out of synch. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be in a list article as well as a template. Dream Focus 00:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cut and paste duplicate of the category and templates. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a duplicate, but that is o.k. Someone reading one of these articles may find towards the bottom: See also List of white nationalist organizations, then the rather complicated template White nationalism, and right at the bottom Category:White nationalists. Three different navigational aids with the same effect. "See also ... list" is probably the most obvious link for new users, the template gives quicker navigation for more experienced users, and the category may be more useful for editors. There is no reason why we should not support all three. Reader convenience should trump ease of maintenance. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are inherently not duplicative of categories because they can provide additional context that is unavailable with categories. This is a list of notable organizations and fully meets the requirements of WP:List. Improvements are being made where needed.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories, templates, and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have all 3 (except that templates are impractical if they get too large, which is not relevant here(. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list--and vice-versa. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:CLN guideline specifically allows a category, list and template on the same topic to co-exist. Different people prefer to navigate in different ways so having all three is normally helpful (except, for example, when a template gets too big). As stated above lists can also contain extra information that cannot exist in templates or categories meaning they should in no way be redundant. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn; all others are now keep. Non-admin closure. — Timneu22 · talk 15:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Myles Beeching

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

The article in question is just over the CSD line, but I still don't see any reason why this person is particularly notable or significant. — Timneu22 · talk 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made to the article to highlight person's contributions and breadth of their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeWikiWriter (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ while definitely above CSD, this article appears promotional, and after a reasonable search, I do not think that this person meets WP:BIO, especially WP:AUTHOR. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak keep per below. Seems to have some significance, though meeting WP:Author is still somewhat questionable. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've wikified and extended the refs, as well as removing material directly on the merits of the forthcoming new edition of her book. Despite that previous content (and the apparent WP:SPA element of the article's creation), her Oxford University Press book going to 2nd edition and content on sites like Polyphonic.org incline me to the view that the article should be kept. AllyD (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per AllyD. There are at least a few reviews of her book such as [4]. Hobit (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD, and Hobit seems to have established some kind of notability.Acather96 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thomas and the Magic Railroad. (non-admin closure) —mono 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Bellis

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

Mrluke485 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod. Subject is British voice actor. Was originally hired to voice Thomas the Tank Engine in Thomas and the Magic Railroad but was cut. This is apparently the only thing he is famous for. Fails WP:ENT. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to Thomas and the Magic Railroad, per WP:BLP1E. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in agreement with User:Phil Bridger of what can be sourced to Thomas and the Magic Railroad. His taxi passenger gave him press for a WP:BLP1E,[5] and while perhaps suitable for a merge, his having done nothing else of note makes this unsuitable as a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Timneu22 · talk 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Thomas and the Magic Railroad, per above. Outside of this one role that didn't work out, there is no coverage of him in reliable sources that I could find. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Angry Flower

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

Webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bob is somewhat popular on the internet, but doesn't have any verifiable mainstream visibility, so it fails WP:GNG Jordan Bettis (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Six published books seem sufficient for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not independent sources which establish notability. Claritas § 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is unsurprising that most of the coverage of an Internet publication is on the Internet. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where ? Point it out please. I can't find it. Claritas § 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "apostrophe" cartoon frequently cited and discussed. Google on "bob the angry flower" apostrophe -wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's just blogs. No reliable sources there at all. Claritas § 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, it is unsurprising that most of the coverage of an Internet publication is on the Internet. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I interpret that as meaning "It's unsurprising an unencyclopaedic topic has received no coverage in reliable sources". Claritas § 00:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're free to interpret it as you wish, of course. I'm not interested in getting into a big argument here, but I think it's a mistake to dismiss a very well-known (which is one sense of the term "notable") subject because most of it's attention has been on the Internet rather than in printed material that's also published on the Internet. But I tend toward inclusionism, myself. Storage is cheap, and my general sense is that if someone might want to know more about a particular subject, deleting does very little (if any) good and loss of consolidated information about a subject is a small tragedy. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not inclusionism. That's simple lack of discrimination. It's simply not the case that everything "written on the Internet" is automatically fact-checked, reliable, and true. You could satisfy Claritas' concerns by answering the original question and pointing to where this subject has been documented, on the WWW or otherwise, by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. A vague handwave in the direction of Google Web is not a source citation, by the way, and is worthless. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 6 published books (which alone should cover notability). Plus 5 pages about it in this book, and this review in Flak Magazine, and this interview and this interview, and this page at Lambiek, and a couple more potential mentions in subscription-only archives (via google news), eg this article in The San Diego Union-Tribune (anyone have access?). Plus it ran in various regional newspapers, over the years. Some refs might be quibblable, but the comic's notability is demonstrated. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources which can be used to establish notability.
See that "newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-" in the URL ? It's a press release, which certainly is not a reliable independent source.
Is Lambiek a reliable source ?
I can't see any significant coverage anyway - lots of mentions in passing. Claritas § 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re #1, Interviews are primary sources, and they are independent sources if they're not self-published. However, the sites themselves might not be considered reliable or notable. I was mostly mentioning them as supplemental material.

Re #2, That google news url is removing presswire, newswire, etc. That's what the - (dash) indicates. It's the same google news link as given in {{find sources}}.

Re #3, Yes. They don't give the Order of Oranje-Nassau away for nothing!

Re #4, How is 5 whole pages about it in a book, not significant? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have access to the San Diego Union-Tribune article and it is not significant coverage of this topic. It is an article about Comic-Con International. Bob the Angry Flower is not mentioned at all in the article. There are three photos with the article. One is of Stephen Notley at his booth, with the caption: Stephen Notley, dressed as his creation, "Bob the Angry Flower," calls his comic books "dessert for your mind." This is a trivial mention, not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much of the above keep reasoning is misguided. "Six published books", for example, means little by itself since comics is full self-publishers. Also, reviews on blogs are generally not reliable sources. However, the 5 pages about this comic in Attitude 2: The New Subversive Alternative Cartoonists and coverage in reliable sources that I'm finding, mostly in Canadian newspapers like the Edmonton Journal, shows we can probably make a good encyclopedia article on this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the newspaper articles ? 5 pages in a book is generally not enough, as WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Claritas § 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For multiple independent reliable sources see for example "Bob the Angry Flower wilts with love: Stephen Notley's new comic collection as hopeful as it is hostile", Edmonton Journal November 18, 2003 Pg. C1 and "Bob's 'explosive hope'; the angry flower wants to save the world", Edmonton Sun November 16, 2003 Pg. SL5 and "Bob the Angry Flower: Dog Killer" Publishers Weekly May 22, 2006 Pg. 38. Those combined with a 5-page chapter in Ted Rall's Attitude book should be enough for us to write a good encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per interviews (which are perfectly fine as RSes btw) and book entry. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quiddity. Newspaper articles, especially an interview, mean it satisfies WP:WEB. Dragoneer (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Hobit. A note about the use of interviews: It makes sense to me to doubt what an interview subject says as potentially unreliable (as with any other primary source), but that's not the issue here. The existence of the interview about the artist and the comic certainly seems to me to directly RS the existence and authorship of the comic, and thus goes toward notability. The book seems clear enough, too. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Joshua (2007 film). Author requested deletion, but its notability seems to be inherited from the film it was featured in, so I redirected it there. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fly (Dave Matthews song)

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

I created this article a long time ago when I first heard about it back in 2007, thinking it would appear on a release, but aside from being part of the end credits of a movie, there has been no release of this song and I don't believe it has established any notability since. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (webcomic)

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

Webcomic which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. There's a consensus that the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards do not substantiate notability. Claritas § 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per is a RS review. DubZog (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Weak Keep This seems like a case of something that's unofficial, so not particularly well sourced, yet nevertheless notable enough... a number of webcomic review / fan-sites have an entry on Avalon. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1SKPC_enEE346EE346&q=Avalon+webcomic&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= And although most of these sites individually fail per WP:WEB, it looks like perhaps it means there's something wrong with the guideline instead. Admittedly it is a rather weak point, yet it just seems.... odd... to delete an article on something that lots of people clearly care about, and that by its nature makes a good encyclopeadic topic. DubZog (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make a good encyclopaedic topic at all, because there's no coverage of it in reliable third party sources. Fan-site coverage is not significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Claritas § 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/p/139/avalon ; http://www.comicspace.com/raerae/ ; http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Avalon_webcomic ; and most notably http://www.tangmonkey.com/columns/98997953526130.php ? All of those sources are independent, and with regards to reliability, one has to assess the likelyhood of anyone wanting to forge information about a comic... I'd say it's rather minimal. Also, the nature of the topic of the article (webcomic) means that there probably will never be a scientific article written on it, and it's quite likely that it won't make the front page of New York Times either, yet to have a wide selection of smaller web-based sources is in my opinion still encouraging. Last but not least, what I meant by "it makes a good encyclopeadic topic" is that "one can write a nice article about it"... in fact... I think there already IS a nice article about it. DubZog (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We're trying to make an encyclopaedia, not a crass directory of every single semi-verifiable piece of information. Claritas § 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:RS a long time ago :) However, I don't believe that sticking to it WORD-FOR-WORD every single time is sensible if we want wikipedia to improve. I'm by no means saying that it should be ignored, just that well... it's sensible to look at each case individually and assess what form of verification is actually necessary. DubZog (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment on your form here, Claritas, or would that be an unwelcome distraction form the issue? --Kiz o r 11:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "form", do you mean my formatting ? Claritas § 21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a RS review. Also has won award award from the major webcomic body. (Best School-based Comic and Best Dramatic Comic) Hobit (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - comixtalk is not a reliable source - it's a blog, and there's a consensus that those awards have absolutely no bearing whatsoever to notability - see the discussion above. Claritas § 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll strongly disagree on both. The awards are certainly notable (see last AfD) and comixpedia isn't a SPS, it has a lot of contributors [6] with editorial control over their contributions. Pretty classic (if specialized) RS. Take it to the RS noticeboard if you feel strongly about it. Hobit (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards aren't notable enough - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Goonish Shive (2nd nomination). WP:CCC. Claritas § 10:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing any reference to these awards in that discussion. That said, if we want to establish some kind of binding consensus about webcomics, I suggest you do it at WP:COMIC, a single AfD isn't binding on anything else nor does it establish conscious. If it did, I could just point to the last AfD of this comic which plainly accepted the award as meeting WP:WEB... Hobit (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes they are. --Kiz o r 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Nothing listed above shows significant coverage in reliable sources independent of this topic. I'll go through each of these sources.

http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/p/139/avalon - The web Comic List is intended to be a list of all webcomics, and anyone can get their webcomic listed there. See http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/about.php and http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/suggest.php, "Will you list my comic? Certainly, just use the suggest a comic page to add comics to the site," and "If you want to see your comic or a comic you read appear on The Webcomic List then please enter the it's details below! ... Your comic will be added to the list straight away."
http://www.comicspace.com/raerae/ - This is this webcomic creators' user profile on a social networking site. It's like myspace for comics; anyone can create a profile on this site. See http://www.comicspace.com/faq.php, "ComicSpace is a social networking site for comic fans and creators. It's kind of like MySpace, but for comic enthusiasts." And see http://www.comicspace.com/memlist.php where there are over 45,000 other members.
http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Avalon_webcomic is a wikipedia mirror. See http://www.servinghistory.com/pages/about, "Basically I began with Wikipedia and I use a complex cascade of base code disassemblage, a lot of regular expressions act as enzymes to lyse the Wiki code, determine granular relevancy and reassemble sections based on heuristic algorithms."
http://www.tangmonkey.com/columns/98997953526130.php is an email interview on internet zine, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards - trivial web award that is not an indication of notability. If it were, winning such an award would result in coverage by better sources than the above user-submitted lists, social networking profiles and wikipedia mirroring. Specific problems with these awards in relation to this webcomic are that "Avalon was a member of Keenspot" and these awards are hosted by Keenspot, so the award and the webcomic are not independent of each other.
http://comixpedia.com/avalon_josh_phillips_reviewed_apis_teicher - This is not an independent nor a reliable source. It is a "keenspace" webcartoonist writing on a blog about a "keenspot" webcomic. The blog (ComixTalk) is founded by other Keenspot-related cartoonists.

Conclusion: We do not have the multiple significant, independent reliable sources that are needed to write an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the latest addition to the list that made me completely change my mind, http://comixpedia.com/avalon_josh_phillips_reviewed_apis_teicher . Comixtalk is a comics' review site with an extensive list of notable editors, which has been active since 2003 and gained widespread popularity since. DubZog (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't "ignore" it; I simply missed it. That is not an independent nor a reliable source. It is a "keenspace" webcartoonist writing on a blog about a "keenspot" webcomic. The blog (ComixTalk) is founded by other Keenspot-related cartoonists. I've added this to the numbered list above for the sake of readability. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT a blog. See http://comixpedia.com/contributors for a list of editors of comixtalk. Note that comixtalk also issues a printed magazine. DubZog (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ComixTalk has never issued a printed magazine. See http://comixtalk.com/node/8169, "There are times I wish we printed Comixpedia magazine on paper." Typing "NOT A BLOG" in all caps does not change the fact that is a self-published website, blog and forum that is not independent of this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, now I also found out that the webcomic Avalon has a fanclub with a website... I know that you won't care about it because (sorry if it may sound offensive, because it's not intended to be) your world seems to be limited to WP:Notability, yet well... to me it seems like we're trying to delete something that a large number of people undoubtedly care about, and something that provides good information for an encyclopedia article. It's perhaps just a bit unfortunate that no "major" newspaper has picked up on it yet, yet I can't see how one could reasonably cast doubt on its existence or the fact that well... plenty of people care about it, (i.e. notability in the original sense of the word). It looks like we're just proponents of different AfD philosophies, and as such we're bound to end up disagreeing on this issue, hence, with this post I'm over and out. http://community.livejournal.com/avalon_fanclub/ DubZog (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks, this is feeling like a case of IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps "web comics probably aren't notable". The site and awards have been considered acceptable in the past. If you want to argue the awards, take it up with the comics project group. If you want to argue the RS, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one is boarder-line. Single person in control but many contributors and editorial control exists. I'd say counts as a RS in this context unless you are claiming there is a reasonable expectation the interview was faked. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, it's voted on by a well defined group not controlled by keenspot. And your argument about awards means that we should just not have awards mentioned in SNGs as they would be unneeded. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment on awards: The Web Cartoonist Choice Awards are not well-known or independent awards. They are little-known webcomic awards created and hosted by webcomic hosting site keenspot/space, voted on by primarily keenspot/spacers, and they give awards to primarily keenspot/space comics. All you have to do to understand this is look at the nominees for "Best School Based-Comic" and "Best Dramatic Comic" for 2001, the awards this comic has won. School-Based comic nominees: Avalon (Keenspot), College Roomies from Hell!!! (Keenspot), Minor Reality (Keenspace), The Class Menagerie (Keenspot), and Blotto Street (Keenspace). Dramatic Comic nomineees: Avalon (Keenspot), Odd Jobs {Keenspace), Clan of the Cats (Keenspot), Fans! (Keenspot), and Wandering Ones (Keenspot). Every single nominee is a keenspot/space comic because these are not independent awards. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time keenspot was a large % of the on-line comics. In any case, even looking at the 2001 awards I'm not seeing keenspot dominating anything. Only one or two of the nominated comics struck me as keenspot's though I honestly don't recall of them. In any case, I think that the industry, such as it is, takes it seriously. I'm seeing awards for things like Kevin and Kell, Girl G, Schlock and lots of others that had nothing to do with Keenspot AFAIK. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at these 2001 awards, I count keenspot giving themselves awards in 20 out of 24 categories. No, Keenspot has never been "a large % of the on-line comics", it represents only a tiny fraction of all webcomics published in the world. And yes, Schlock Mercenary was hosted by Keenspot. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further different comment on awards The Web Cartoonist Choice Awards are very well-known indeed! They are in fact SO well known, that even the New York Times wrote about them, as can be seen here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200&en=08e3777cc4943486&ei=5090&partner=geartest&emc=rss . As per this citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Cartoonists'_Choice_Awards#cite_note-1 they, as well as the ComixTalk website, have also been commented upon in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Xo-QYdfL9DoC . Also, although if we counted all the webcomics ever published by anyone, those published under Keenspot would only amount to a tiny fraction, at least according to this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keenspot , it is the single biggest publisher of online webcomics, with the lot of them attracting 50 million pageviews monthly and 600 paying members as of 2002, when they published two times less webcomics than they have done lately. DubZog (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC) (Note that the wikipedia article on Keenspot is well sourced and all the information provided can be traced back to the original sources, I only provided a link to the wikipedia article here for convenience.) DubZog (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is incorrect: there is consensus that winning a WCCA does satisfy WP:WEB as a significant award, per the AFD's of Jack (webcomic), Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki, and others. That someone forgot that one time in an AFD does not override that standing precedent. (It also gives a good case for submitting that instance for deletion review.) Dragoneer (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Has only been part of one notable ensemble, failing WP:MUSIC #6 NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wilgus

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, plays for two non-notable bands. 4Front (which Ive also listed as an AFD) has had several albums released but none have charted or were released on a major or well-known indy label. Indeed, Spec Records (see:http://www.joebergamini.com/specrecords/catalog.html#RWG) is run by a band member Joe Bergamini -- If one clicks the contact spec records the email is "specrecords@joebergamini.com". Disputed prod. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems to pass WP:MUSIC 6. he is low profile but seems to get around. if his bands are not notable, this doesn't seem like the place to argue that. it seems like the nominator is trying to create circular reasoning logic for deleting all of these related articles. Tduk (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"he is low profile but seems to get around" -- I don't really know what this means or its relation to notability. Can you elaborate? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you be more specific about how this article passes WP:MUSIC #6? The article says that he has been a member of Evoken and 4Front, but does not list any sources to confirm his involvement in Evoken, and that article does not even list him as a current or former band member. Even assuming the notability of 4Front -- which is in dispute -- I do not think we can take it for granted that he "has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" if the Wikipedia articles that claim it lack reliable sources. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC #6 confers notability to "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." I cannot (http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=291, http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Evoken-l-en.html, http://www.tartareandesire.com/bands/Evoken/618/,http://www.myspace.com/evoken) find evidence that Wilgus is/ever was a member of Evoken. Moreover, the notability of 4Front is currently being debated. I cannot understand why -- if he is purportedly notable re WP:MUSIC #6 "this doesn't seem like the place to argue that" his bands are not notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no evidence Wilgus was a member of Evoken and with 4Front's notability seeming to depend on Wilgus's notability he is a member of zero notable bands, less than the two asked for. Without coverage, no notability. duffbeerforme (talk)
Delete - since I didn't make it explicit before, given that his sole involvement with Evoken appears to have been peripheral, and his other claim to notability (4Front) has since been decided non-notable. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not heard of him, although notability is different from fame. Anyway, I have heard of some pretty low-profile artists, but not him. I suppose I will partially 2nd what Tim Pierce said earlier. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that in the absence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources this article should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Seaplane Service

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

I told myself I had let this go, but I have to admit it, this article is my white whale. I find it ridiculous that it survived my two previous AFD noms. Allow me to explain why:

The only reference that is used to actually establish notability is a brief mention in a travel magazine wherein the author mentions that he flew with these guys. The article is about the trip they went on, not the air taxi they flew on.
Their fleet is tiny and only operates in one small corner of Alaska
At the previous AFDs several users made up new inclusion criteria out of thin air and then proudly proclaimed that this article met those criteria. Apparently verifying that this air taxi exists and has airplanes was enough for some users.
Alaska has at least 500 small local air carriers like this. We also have hundreds of local land and water taxis. Few if any of them are notable or even known outside of the local areas in which they operate
There have been no real substantive improvements to this article in all the time since the last AFD. Why? Because there still aren't any real sources to base any new content on.
There was some claim that providing "essential air services" for the government automatically endowed them with notability, but no one ever explained why that is or what guideline it was based on. There are such contracts in pretty much all coastal or isolated areas of Alaska, it's nothing special. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. It's not surprising there's so little material on an airline which has two planes. Claritas § 18:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (copied from 2nd AfD) Air transportation is absolutely essential in Alaska and are practically its lifeline. The size of the airplanes has nothing to do with notability. I suppose the "local" contention is referring to the service area which in fact it hundreds of thousands of square miles. This German article writes about it too.--Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised you simply copied over your comments from the last AFD, I believe I refuted the bulk of your reasoning in my nomination. This whole "essential service" thing is a red herring. We have taxis, boats, and busses that provide the same services, not only elsewhere in Alaska but in Juneau and the rest of the panhandle. Nobody has ever explained what makes this one more notable than all the others. In my town we have a taxi company that operates four vehicles. They have several government contracts for providing local transportation to the elderly and disabled, and that could be verified with publicly available documents. Does that make them notable? (answer=no) This argument smacks of "it's automatically notable because airplanes are cool." Airplanes are cool, but as you mention yourself, they are much, much more commonly used in Alaska than in the rest of the states, making one small carrier among hundreds less notable than small airlines elsewhere, not more. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite its small size, it is an Airline offering scheduled flights, which has been established over 50 years. If this was just a charter operation which had never operated scheduled flights then I would agree with deletion, but it isn't. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVIATION notified. Mjroots (talk)

Sorry, can you show me the guideline which says that airlines which offer scheduled flights (no matter how small, and how little independent coverage they have in reliable sources) are automatically notable? I haven't seen that one. SnottyWong ^yak 14:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade and Mjroots, although I think Oakshade's argument is somewhat flawed - the importance of aviation in Alaskan life merits an article about that subject, not necessarily every little aviation company meeting the needs of Alaskan communities. Yes, there are lots of little aviation companies that don't deserve WP articles, but IMO this isn't one of them. The thing that differentiates this one from other little companies out there is that it is offering scheduled services as opposed to charter services. Are there really hundreds of scheduled airlines in Alaska? YSSYguy (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless I am missing a standard somewhere else, (like the specific one we have for aircraft) the applicable notability standard is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This just doesn't have the references to make that standard. Please do correct me if I am looking at the wrong standard. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Ahunt, it is simply not notable. Roger (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following is the sum total of WP guidelines dealing specifically with airline notability: "Commercial airlines can be notable if they have been discussed in multiple, reliable sources". This airline has been mentioned in the Flight International World Airline Directory since 2004 and in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, it seems Alaska Seaplane Service has more mention in "independent, third-party, reliable sources" than many other aviation companies with articles, some of which I have tried (and failed) to have deleted via either CSD or PROD. Regardless of how this discussion turns out, perhaps it is time to iron out what actually constitutes a notable airline. YSSYguy (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in a directory is not an argument for notability, otherwise everyone who is listed in a phonebook would be notable. The subject must be "discussed", not merely mentioned. Airlines must also comply with WP:CORP. Roger (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do agree with YSSYguy that we really should develop a guideline for airline notability with detail similar to the one we have for aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the above question from YSSY: Yes, there are hundreds of small local air carriers in Alaska that offer scheduled service to small villages. I live in a town that is much, much smaller than Juneau and we have four scheduled carriers and about ten unscheduled ones. Outfits like this are the equivalent of a village taxi or the boat that delivers the mail. There is nothing special about having a schedule, it's just a way to get regular customers who come into hub towns to do grocery shopping and so forth and want a cheap reliable ride back to their village. If somebody could explain why having a schedule makes something notable I'd really appreciate it, because to me that is just nonsense. The bank I go to has a schedule that dictates that deposits made after 4pm on Friday will not be processed until Monday. Does that make them notable? The grocery store here has a schedule that says that Thursday is senior citizen discount day. Is that notable? More on point, the guy that will drive you from here to Anchorage leaves at 8:30 in the morning. His passenger capacity is about the same as two small airplanes. Is he also automatically notable?

By the way, we do have a very brief article that could really use some expansion on the History of aviation in Alaska, and you can click here to see my failed attempt to get a cogent guideline established for these types of air carriers. I want to stress that I have tried to fix this mess, but as it stands now I strongly believe this article does not meet the basic criteria for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:YSSYguy has started a general discussion on the topic of developing a notability standard for articles about air carriers at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Notability_guidelines_for_aviation_companies. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic appears in numerous books about Alaska and so has adequate notability for our purposes. The nomination is openly disruptive per WP:DEL as it is clear that the only reason for making the nomination is the hope of getting a different result. Please see WP:WIN and WP:LETITGO. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a few quotes from some of the "numerous books" please. Roger (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous AfD closed as no consensus, so relisting is appropriate. I'm not seeing the "numerous books" that Colonel Warden talks about. Here is my analysis of the 5 sources in this article:

"Directory: World Airlines". Flight International - A mere listing of airlines proves existence, not notability.
Hinman, Mike (January 2, 2001). "Flight services face insurance nightmare". Juneau Empire. - Trivial mention in an article that is otherwise about insurance premiums for such companies.
"Alaska Seaplane Service - Certificate - Interstate Air Transportation". US Department of Transportation. - Copies of the company's licenses and certificates once again only prove existence, not notability.
"ORDER SELECTING CARRIER". US Department of Transportation. 2008-12-29. - Copy of a contract between this company and the US government. No notability established here.
http://www.flyalaskaseaplanes.com/about.html - Primary source. Seems to indicate that this company owns and operates a whopping four planes.

So, it is clear to see that this article does not pass WP:GNG's requirement of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no need to establish alternate guidelines for the notability of airline companies when WP:GNG is doing just fine in this case. SnottyWong ^communicate 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, care to back off the accusations a bit? What exactly is "openly disruptive" about re-nominating an article for deletion eighteen months after the previous discussion? An article that has never had adequate sourcing despite the completely bogus claims made here and in the previous AFDs? Here's a policy page you left off your list: consensus can change. There has been more than ample opportunity for this articles defenders to come up with some real, substantive sources that discuss this particular air carrier in a non trivial fashion. Where are they? All that has been provided is evidence that it exists, and that one German travel writer once took a ride on one of their planes. How anyone can claim that establishes notability is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that air service in Alaska is an indication that an article about air service in Alaska would be worthwhile having. It does nto mean that every air carrier is therefore notable. A paramedic provides life saving services. It does not follow that every paramedic is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I closed the first AFD in 2008 as "keep" but this time I have to agree with the nom. The only coverage I can find is trivial mentions, directory entries and such. I might be convinced to keep this under WP:IAR if they were the only game in town but air services are a dime a dozen up there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant coverage of this tiny airline in this discussion, or that I can find. Courcelles (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekti

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

Fictional element which does not meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 17:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is about an element of fiction that has no reliable sources writing about it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophies

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

The content and purpose of this list is duplicated by the List of philosophical theories (which is consistent with its category). Greg Bard (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little disingenuous. You create list of philosophical theories as an unattributed copy of this article (plus some others) in March 2009, redirecting this article to your copy. Almost no-one apart from you edits it, and it's nominated for deletion in April 2009. The closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophical theories is to redirect your copy to the original article and retain that, with its full edit history, as the place to edit. You unilaterally undo that action in July 2010, and then proceed, here, to nominate for deletion the original article that you had copied without proper attribution, whose edit history is required. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous? No, the matter is not as simple as you portray it. I have been trying to organize the philosophy department for a long time now. I have been trying to get a single main list for each of philosophers, philosophical literature, philosophical concepts, and philosophical theories. This is my goal consistent with the category structure of the philosophy category tree. Other people have had other ideas, however they are not consistent with any larger effort, just ones' own taste. Perhaps you intend to mean something else was "disingenuous" but, in good faith, this proposal is not.

Furthermore, your presumption that the newly expanded list is "copied without proper attribution" is not so simple either. The list was compiled as described in the lead paragraph. It is a collection of articles in those particular categories. Many of the members of that list are also members of this list, however, that is incidental. There was no rhyme or reason to this list, there is for the other one.

I have to admit that preservation of the edit history of this list is a zero priority compared to organizing the list consistent with the categories. However, if it pleases those who insist, I would certainly support attatching the edit history of this list to the other one (even though that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since the list arises out of the categories.) Greg Bard (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation of the edit history should be a high priority. Editors who make contributions here, whether the majority know it or not, do so with a promise that their copyrighted contributions will be dealt with as the promise says. That promise is the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, listed right below what I'm typing now. For better or worse, that priority is pretty serious.

Is this just a merge / fork issue? We have procedures to do edit history merges (pain in the ass I hear) and similar fixes for this sort of thing. Or is it a duplicate article? In either case, maybe you could provide a little more disclosure about the history of these articles and we can find a compromise so there's 1 article that covers the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history is a big mish mash. There was even a third List of belief systems that was similar, but it was deleted with little fanfare. I took all the various lists, and combined them (in my userspace). Then, I ran the Mathbot's list updater. I updated the list, and then I got rid of the redirects. Then, I went through the articles not in a "theories" category, and put them in one. Then I ran the Mathbot list updater again.

I don't think every instance when an individual adds an article to a category... which later causes the article to be added to a list via bot ... needs to be preserved by the license agreement. Similarly, I don't think contributions of one item at a time to a list is a high priority for maximizing our adhereance to the license agreement. This is a case where if it was parliamentary procedure I would propose to suspend the rule so as to facilitate the conduct of business. If some preseravtion makes people feel more comfortable then we should endeavor to merge the histories. Greg Bard (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic towards your point, but American copyright law is not exactly logical. How about this. For purposes of this AfD let's focus on the particular topic, and whether or not it duplicates another topic, and as for the history merging (which I think is important) let's include as many pages as possible, to the chagrin of the poor editor that has to do that. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yes this is a duplication. I would propose that the histories be merged so as to include the whole of the history of list of philosophies onto the history of list of philosophical theories. The list of philosophical theories had been a redirect with no content to care who contributed it up until a short time ago. Please do keep the title so as to be consistent with the philosophy categories. Greg Bard (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Keep - The charges raised above are serious and there should be no deletion until the background of this topic and deletion proposal are clarified. Carrite (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Based on the above, this discussion belonged on WP:REQMOVE.—RJH (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion would obviously be improper, as discussed above. The nominator fails to explain why redirection would not be a satisfactory alternative per our deletion and editing policies. And I prefer the current title which avoids the chore of arguing whether entries like Darwinism or Western philosophy are theories or something more. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it easy. I think this is maybe a misunderstanding of the move criteria or procedure that could probably be closed now. Or are you arguing for separately named articles addressing the same thing? Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should take it easy. This means not using the delete button and, instead, using ordinary editing methods per the emphatic guidance at WP:BEFORE. I'm not seeing any sources or consensus in this stuff and so there is little objective basis for a severe action which would not be readily corrected as and when we have sources and/or editorial consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to other page, which is based on categories. No need for history merge, simply delete. Verbal chat 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Keep - I'm not going to support deleting this until the issues above are resolved. Claritas § 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important topic list, and should be kept distinct from the other article(s). ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, excuse me, but what, in your mind, distinguishes this list from the list of philosophical theories? (Because I am certain that there is no distinction). Greg Bard (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of philosophies contains different schools of thought and ideas about the lifestyle and existential philosophies of individuals and societies. The list of philosophical theories, however, are theories about viewpoints over the way that things are. They are very similar, but there is a definite and defiant distinction. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one interpretation. However, I don't think that is a very conveinient way to look at things. In the language of formal logic a theory is just anything that can be expressed as {t1,t2,t3,...,tn} where the 't's are just believed statements. Under that logical interpretation there is no distinction between these lists and one needs to go. I am, however open minded to broadening the scope of List_of_schools_of_philosophy and renaming it to List of philosophical movements. A "theory" is an idea, and there is little argument about whether or not something is an idea or not. However, whether or not we have a "movement" is a matter of debate, depends on there being an organization, etcetera.Greg Bard (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have closed the impossible WP:RM request to merge this article's history into the revived List of philosophical theories.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure what is going on here. The template has moved to a different page. Is the proposal now to delete "list of philosophies" and move "list of philosophical theories" to that namespace? I would support that.Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as List of philosophical theories is based on categories and thus can be automatically updated. If and when the list starts using its corresponding category for automatic updates, I will change my mind to keep. T3h 1337 b0y 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a mish-mash list of philosophies, religions, foreign policies and one or two subjects which are ripe candidates for deletion themselves. How one groups Chaos theory, Christian existentialism, Interventionism and 'Chinese philosophy' (which, IMHO, is about as valid a school of philosophical thought as "American philosophy," or "Pennsylvania philosophy.") together is beyond me. Delete as there is no obviously consistent or logical reason for the grouping.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER Does everyone see this last post? The page was moved and the lead paragraph changed. Now people don't see any sense in it. This is a breach of policy to be moving pages around while there is an open discussion going on. Greg Bard (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? The last edit to this article, as of right now, is by you. If you are referring to List of philosophical theories, that has not been moved anywhere. Per this AfD, which you participated in, so I assume you know the result, it was redirected to List of philosophies (though it should have been deleted and redirected, given the copyright violation in the history). I also assume you know that you should not unilaterally overturn deletion discussions, in this case reviving a copyright violation you made by a cut and paste move of two articles into one. For that reason, as a I noted above, upon closing your recent WP:RM request to merge the page histories (here), I reverted your revival and protected the redirect.
Let's be clear. You can properly merge two articles together, which requires giving attribution on the merge. The instructions are at Help:Merging#Performing the merger. So, back on March 9, 2009, you could have properly merged together List of philosophies and List of belief systems with proper attribution, and you could have then moved (i.e., using the software's move function) that merged content to the title List of philosophical theories, if that name change was appropriate. You could have then edited that content, and if not reverted, we might have today the content that you seek. Right now you can edit this list article to make it function in a way you think is better and if not reverted, that will stick. In fact, even though there is a redirect at List of philosophical theories, if this article, List of Philosophies is better at that title, it can be moved there, and if the copyright violation history of the redirect is to be preserved, a history swap can be done. But List of philosophical theories cannot be revived, and no merge of this article's history into it, or vice-versa, makes any sense at all (and would, even if warranted, create a complete history muddle as they have overlapping edits).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And start all over from scratch. In its current form, the article is approaching the status of "a list of all ideas", which is completely worthless as an encyclopedia article. One can only have a meaningful list if there is a sensible demarkation criterion for what should be on the list and what should not, yet under this name, such a criterion could never be found. DubZog (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from Mtiffany71. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul N. Carlin

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

Delete. I do not support the idea that all postmasters are somehow inherently notable. Especially ones that only served for a year. If the best we can come up with is "X held position Y for one year" then really the choice to delete is clear. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the guy was in charge of a major national public service. The article needs expanding, sure, but that's no reason to delete it imo. -- role^player 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is a straw man argument. The article should be kept, not because "all postmasters are somehow inherently notable", but because the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, as can be seen by reading any number of the hundreds of sources found by Google Books and Google News archive searches. There's much more that can be said than "X held position Y for one year", as the nominator knows full well having removed it from the article rather than make any effort to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you feel that much more can be said and you have citable sources, then by all means, fill out the article.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I don't have sole responsibility for building this encyclopedia. This is a discussion to evaluate the notability of the article subject, not an edit-on-demand service. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the US Postal Service may be notable for a number of reasons, notability is not heritable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is notable only for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that theory, most public servants who held one position would be deleted!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they held only this position and nothing indicates notability, than yes. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of Carlin, as proven by the Google Book and Google News Archive sources noted above by Phil Bridger. WP:N and WP:BIO are thus satisfied. The nominator should have checked for references before nominating the article. See WP:BEFORE. Edison (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to delete, held a major US public office. Plus it looks like every US postmaster general has an article and deleting this one would upset a settled organizational scheme for the project--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS..? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, you nominated something without realizing this is an encyclopedia. We don't delete Rhode Island because its the least notable U.S. state.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your analogy is flawed and doesn't pay mind to the link I just cited. We deleted WP:WALLEDGARDENS all the time. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll make the "straw man argument" — Postmaster Generals are inherently notable. Any serious history of the US Postal Service will need a link to him. One doesn't "make" Wikipedia merely by dominating the news for a protracted period, thereby showing up all over the place on Google searches... Postmaster Generals of the United States are inherently notable public figures the same as Secretaries of the Treasury, Ambassadors to the United Kingdom, or other such top level government officials. Carrite (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Very strong keep. The nomination implies that the subject was just a postmaster. If he were, I would have recommended deletion ... but he wasn't. He was the United States Postmaster General, a position which had Cabinet status for over 140 years (albeit not at the time Paul Carlin served in the position). It appears we have articles about every single other Postmaster General in the history of the United States, from Benjamin Franklin to John E. Potter. Deleting this article would leave an inexplicable redlink gap. I am willing to improve this article myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it can be improved and I'm not sure this is a valid speedy keep either. Perhaps a better solution would be to just create a "List of Postmaster Generals" or something to that effect? We can't keep one line stubs like this around even if there are dozens of others (which don't really justify each other, either). JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already found some sources with which to improve the article, and I plan to use them to add sourced information to the article unless someone gets there first. With regard to whether this is a valid speedy keep, I admit that it no longer is a "speedy keep" because two other editors have also recommended "delete" besides the nominator. However, the nomination is at least seriously misleading by implying that the subject was just a "postmaster" (of which there are thousands in the United States at any given time) rather than being the Postmaster General of the U.S. (of which there is only one at any given time). I have not checked all of the other articles about the Postmasters General, but of the ones I have checked, this is the only one-line stub. If you have found any other one-line stub articles about U.S. Postmasters General, please indicate which ones those are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe this even got nominated. OF COURSE all Postmasters General of the United States are notable. They are the head of an agency specifically authorized by the United States Constitution, one that affects every single American every day. His appointment was reported in dozens of newspapers [7], his firing was reported in dozens more, up to and including Time Magazine [8]. I don't know how much more notability you want. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether one believes that postmaster-general is inherently notable (I tend to think it is), the fact that his brief tenure and firing were written up in Time magazine is enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. And there's plenty of other press also cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've completed the work I wanted to do on expanding the article. Please note that the article is now very different from the way it looked at the time it was nominated for AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent work, Metropolitan. As complete and well-sourced an article as I've ever seen. (BTW I have always disliked the pattern where an editor will strip the article down to a stub and THEN nominate it for deletion; you shouldn't have had to dig all this stuff back up again IMO.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per great job on the rescue. Even, arguendo that Postmasters Generals of the United States, a constitutional officer, were not per se notable, this guy most surely is. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my nomination as I believe this article has somehow magically improved to the point where it does not warrant a deletion request. My believe that not all US Postmaster Generals are notable remains, but this biography is at least now sufficient in my eyes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Somehow magically improved" seems a rather grudging description of the research and editing done by Metropolitan, don't you think? --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep US Postmaster Generals are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty International

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

Why the page should be deleted SchnitteUK (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing this article for deletion for two reasons, namely, poor quality and lack of notability. As to the second: The only source cited by the article is the website of the organization itself, which is of course a viable reference, but should not be the only one for reasons of impartiality. As to the first reason: A brief Google search indicates that the top pages coming up are (1) the website of the organization itself, (2) Wikipedia and its mirros, and (3) websites that happen to contain the words "Sovereignty International" in this sequence, but without any relation to the organization. The organization's website looks very unprofessional, and contains largely ads, a library of a discontinued newspaper column, and defunct links. In short, it doesn't appear to be an active and serious NGO. SchnitteUK (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SI does not appear to have an existence beyond its own site and this article. patsw (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- role^player 17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the findings above: not a notable organisation. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWLANMap

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

This is a non-notable open-source project to create a worldwide database of WLAN (wireless access) points. I realize that every time someone nominates anything open-source for deletion people will stop by to say "Why does Wiki hate free online projects?" Well, personally, I like free online projects, but at the same time I simply can't find anything that I could remotely consider significant independent coverage of OpenWLANMap in any independent reliable source (WP:N). The SourceForge download page doesn't exactly do it. A contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Bergs

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

Unreferenced, sounds like a total hoax, no sources found on Google. Would speedy, but I think this would be challenged. Renata (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Viesturs Kālinieks to this AfD. Renata (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article seems to make it clear that this individual never existed. Claritas § 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have found various sources from a google search that show that Elvis Bergs was mayor of Liepāja from 1956 to 1959 so this looks to be a BLP attack page rather than a hoax: even our historic version of the Liepāja article from a few days ago shows clearly that this guy existed. Viesturs Kālinieks is just blatantly non-notable. -- role^player 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person might be real, but if so, this article says nothing useful on the subject. Empty Buffer (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The main problem that was expressed in this discussion was that the article lacked notability and verifiability due to the lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. In response, a couple users provided sources to the point where the problems expressed by deletion !votes had been addressed to, to at least some extent (for example, it has been verified that Gray was one of the early founders of the Boy Scouts in the United States). As a result, as was pointed out by the succeeding comment and keep !vote, a certain level of notability and verifiability was established. Non-admin closure. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fellows Gray

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

Delete, lack of sources to back up claim doing a google news archive search found only one mention [[9]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION

I commend and respect your careful watching of pages but I think his notability is reflected in his actual accomplishments, recognition by BSA at their 25th Anniversary (1935), the unique and singular designation of Troop 4 Montclair as THE WORLDS ONLY "Baden Powell Troop", the naming of an almost 100 year old camp for him from the outset (now Bergen County Park) which people might reasonably expect Wikipedia to enlighten them about (the Camp is referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia).

There may be some rationale I am missing why news is the criteria for Google search but more broadly here are credible confirmations:

Here are the links that demonstrate this:

Yale University: http://yufind.library.yale.edu/yufind/Record/2657069 notes him as author

FindAGrave: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=55011492 read the picture of his monmument.

Glen Gray: http://www.glengray.org/75.html note BSA Plaque

Newark Star Ledger: http://www.glengray.org/fogg/NewsArticles/StarLedger2-6-02.htm $5M for the camp and kept his name on it! 2002

NYNJCT Botany Website: http://www.nynjctbotany.org/njhltofc/glengray.html confirms his 1917 founding of the Camp.

Syracuse University: http://books.google.com/books?id=O8IVAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA844&lpg=PA844&dq=%22frank+fellows+gray%22&source=bl&ots=ad0BtzBSNQ&sig=WI-pY7Vv4dEgXBDM5J-Km2erKG8&hl=en&ei=nIxATM6fKsG78gasysiZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBQ

Google books scan confirms his attendance there and Phi Delta Theta Membership

I believe all of these meet the Wikipedia standard for inclusion and will allow other scholars to amend, add or correct any errors.

I am not associated with Glen Gray past or present (hope to visit someday). Just a missing piece of NJ and Scout history that should be accessible to everyone so they do not have to scrounge around the internet like I did to assemble the article.

Dalcrow (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding my reasoning I did not see those references when I had searched so I can understand your rationale. I am not opposed to withdrawing considering the circumstances. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - got out my digital copy of In The Dark and playing Touch of Grey for us and Mr. Gray!

Miss Jerry too! Will wait to see if others chime in. Dalcrow (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the article makes claims that, if confirmed, would be grounds for notability (i.e. that he founded the first Scout troop in the United States). Unfortunately, it's not very well referenced at the moment - most of the information here is only supported by non-independent sources (i.e. the Glen Gray website). If better references to third-party sources can't be found, I have to conclude the subject of the article is not notable. Robofish (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Added - added four references confirming some of the key elements for notability. Anyone who does not appreciate the level of effort Wikipedia Editors apply to each article has not tried to write one! Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalcrow (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refs establish notability. Lionel (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home-Made-Heroes

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

Not a single reference for this "comic book series" written by a self-published amateur. No CSD here, looking for a snowstorm. — Timneu22 · talk 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let the flurries begin. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A strong case could be made for this being speedy tagged as spam. --bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll give that a shot! — Timneu22 · talk 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari 360 GTCR

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

No indication that this car actually exists, and claims are unreasonable. Appears to the product of rumor. Myavantssoslow (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to exist. Article reads like an advertisment directed at gearheads. Cites no sources.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CRYSTALBALL applies as considered by the appropriate WikiProject. See WikiProject CAR conventions for unannounced vehicles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Yucel

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

Plays for a non-fully professional team in the second division of a non- fully professional league. Fails all notability requirements by a long way. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Delete. A very obvious case. Fails WP:ATH by a mile and is totally unverified. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata -Drdisque (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played at required level, done nothing of note otherwise. Fails all sports notability criteria--ClubOranje^T 11:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight Industries

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

There don't seem to be any independent, non-trivial sources on this company. I've looked, but the best that there seem to be are things like expo sites and business directories that list their address and sometimes reprint the company-written profile of what it is that they do. As such, it seems that this fails WP:CORP and the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Highlight Industries shows up in multiple books, articles and several patents. Imsquare22 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC) — Imsquare22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The name 'Highlight Industries' may show up in books, but the reference is usually to a fictional company which exists only in the book's narrative setting. The phrase 'highlight industries' also shows up in many articles, but used as a verb and a noun, not a proper noun. Lots of companies have patents. That fact that a company has a patent does not make the company notable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most books/articles that contain "highlight industries" are not talking about this company, however there are those among them that are talking about it. Imsquare22 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Small, unremarkable company doesn't meet notability criteria. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for improvement of refs a few days ago - they haven't. Possibly they can't. If they can, please tell us - and show us. Otherwise, it's a company doing its job. They're in a tough field, and I wish them luck - and a return here when the refs turn up. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added article and book in which highlight is noted/discussed. Imsquare22 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a legitimate article. Progress has been made for it to fit WK format and standards. References are in place. Please keep this article. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references appear to be trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrOllie; non-notable. Wizard191 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please! Your user page indicates that you work for ITW Signode: you are in competition with Highlight, and also your company does have a WK article. Be careful about conflict of interest. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rlsheehan is correct that I work for a competitor of Highlight Industries (however, I must say I have never heard of them because they are such a small outfit). Although you are incorrect, Signode/Signode Engineered Products (SEP) doesn't have a WP article; ITW does, but they are merely a holding company that owns SEP. If others deem my !vote as a COI then please disregard it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Page may be redirected at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slide or surrender

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

Pure unsourced WP:OR, lacking significance/importance anyway. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, I know nearly nothing about baseball or softball. But a quick Google search turns up a fair number of references, indicating both that the term is used and that it is debated. Certainly this article needs sources, and the OR/POV needs to be removed. But I think that there is, at a minimum, information here that could be merged (into Softball? Little League??), or could possibly survive as a stand-alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this belongs in Glossary of softball, but that doesn't exist yet. — Timneu22 · talk 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was given a grand total of one minute after article creation before being nominated for deletion. Give an article a chance or at least more than 1 goddamn minute. This is also one of the fastest ways to drive away new editors that registered just two hours ago. Vodello (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, calm down, will you? Anyway, redirect to Softball#Gameplay. After a Google search, I couldn't find that this technique has notability on its own. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I waited one minute or six hours, it's still an apparently original research article without any sources. Should we wait another day? Two days? — Timneu22 · talk 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just have a simple request to please not make new users completely unwelcome the second they make their first contribution the site. You don't have to 'wait' to question an article's importance, but this is something that needed a message on the user talk page and a prod instead of a +1 brownie point toward the next barnstar. Vodello (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what we're doing. And anyway, WP:DEADLINE can work both ways. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is simply not notable on its own. Spanneraol (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it was brand new, I waited a little while to see if it would be built up before responding. It hasn't been. Delete if it stays as is. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emile discography

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

Discography of non-notable producer. Karppinen (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The producer doesn't even have an article on here (only a redirect). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of server support and monitoring

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

Unreferenced essay on network and systems management. As it is unreferenced, material is not suitable for merge. (PROD contested by author who said: "The theme of this article is close and open the fully the articles "Internet Server Monitoring" and "Website monitoring". I think this article is interesting for all who doubted the need for server monitoring for themselves or for their clients.") Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder. The material is written as an essay advocating the need for server monitoring. The material is completely unreferenced and not suitable for merging. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very obviously an opinion piece. jamesgibbon 20:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Unsourced. Reads likes original research. Non-neutral point of view.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good for a thesis, but not for Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. — Timneu22 · talk 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kriton arsenis

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

This nomination is procedural, with a lean to weak delete. I don't see what makes this person entirely notable, yet I'm not an expert on Greece (hence procedural nomination). One blatant problem with this article is the WP:COI which lends to WP:RESUME. Also, not all the "references" really provide any information. I'd like to see an expert on Greece here, or at least to get more opinions to see if this truly satisfies WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article may have COI problems, but as an MEP, the subject undoubtedly qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. Hqb (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be COI issues, but Wp:POLITICIAN reads, "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". He's a Member of the European Parliament, and thus qualifies for an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep, and closing. Convinced. — Timneu22 · talk 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single point of resolution

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

As currently written, article is little more than a dictionary entry. There is no indication that the term is notable enough to have it's own article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More details: User:TFOWR ran a [Google Search], which does produce results. However, my scanning of these results is that they are not using the term in the way the article is. That is, they seem to use the term more in the general sense that two or more things may converge to a single point, not in the sense of an organization relying on a single resources.Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A phrase that could mean many things in a variety of contexts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. T3h 1337 b0y 18:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, says ceiling cat. Nom nom nom.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's potentially a perfectly valid piece. Just needs to be expanded. jamesgibbon 20:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is such expansion possible? What is said about this subject in sources that could be added to an article? Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this a term coined in 2010 by the people from the article's reference, or is it an older term? I can't find any information on it, nor on the reference used.--Atlan (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my recent edits to Single point of failure make this article an orphan. --Kvng (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and screw all deletionists!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terveetkadet (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How very helpful.--Atlan (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's something inherently wrong with the definition: a single resource to resolve any issue? In the absence of RS I suspect that this is a very ill-formulated concept that has no chances to take off, not in RL not even in the ivory tower. East of Borschov 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources. The one reference used in the article can't be found online either (at least I couldn't find it). With seemingly no one able to give a satisfactory answer to my question above, I'll assume the term is not notable and perhaps a neologism.--Atlan (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete the article. I note that while there are several keep !votes, the only rationale stated are that the organization exists and that reliable secondary sources are unavailable because of the 'newness' of the organization. However, an organization becomes notable only when it is reviewed, discussed, or featured in reliable secondary sources. Therefore these articles do not satisfy the notability criterion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes

Also nominated: World Organization for Scientific Cooperation.

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

Promotional pages of very dubious notability. One, Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, was kept after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, but in retrospect this AfD was slanted by several meatpuppets, also appearing at the very recent (and related) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange", which was deleted. Users voting "keep" included User:Wosco (the abbreviation of the second article under scrutiny here). Anyway, about the subjects: these organisations are very closely related, and have little notability outside of it. The Global network is mentioned in one article on Google Scholar[10], hosted by wosco.org, while wosco itself is mentioned in two articles[11], one by themselves and one by Elchin Khalilov, the President of the Network and vice-president of wosco, and hosted on elchin.org. So there are no Google Scholar articles even mentioning this earthquake forecasting institute. or this organization... Google News isn't much better, with one article for wosco[12], which sadly seems to unavailable, and 5 for the Global Network[13]. Note how in the article on the Global Network, there are many "independent sources", including wosco.org, and many sources about Khalilov and his Atropatena system, but not about the Global Network. Note how also the Global network is supposedly an independent source on the Wosco article... The fact that all listed "main publiations" are by Khalilov is telling. I have no idea whether all this is a scam, a one-man project whio has been able to convince some governments to spend money, or the beginning of something truly scientific, but the fact that it has received extremely little attention and that all of it is based on a group of organizations circling around Khalilov is dubious. The site of Wosco[14] is rather telling: featuring the now deleted Geochange, the Global Network, a program for seismic-safe building (featuring Khalilov), and a site for a mineral which promises "antistress, rejuvenation and immunization", from the company “INTERGEO-TETHYS”, with president Khalilov[15]... All mentions of the International Academy of Science (Commission for Health and Ecology) should be taken with a grain of salt as well, Khalilov is the vice-president of this... thing, which has made three publications, two of them by Khalilov, and where the "news" on their site is nearly one year old and all about Khalilov and the Network[16].

All of this is simply a walled garden of self-congratulatory articles based on a number of sites and organizations (with really "big" names, I'll grant you that) by the same person. No evidence that any independent scientific source takes this serious has been found, and the mainstream sources aren't really convincing either. Promotional articles which shouldn't be hosted on Wikipedia.Fram (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as aggressive advertisement for a non-notable and scammy-looking organization, per exhaustive nom. Since there is a history of sockpuppetry here, the closing Admin would be well-advised to go beyond counting the Keep/Delete votes. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, basically per nom, who has done great work in showing their non-notability. There is obviously some relentless promotion going on here, but as for coverage in legitimately independent sources, not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have made a little search on google you can see the notability. Elm478 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well-argued nom. Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I nominated it here last time and my reservations at that time stand, note that all the photos in the article were taken by the main editor of the article, User:Ismail Valiyev, indicating that he works for one or other of these organizations.Mikenorton (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD is not for settle scores. To vote for or against wikipedia needs objective reasoning neutral people. Elm478 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. These organizations are not notable in the least and they appear to be a one man show. They "Contact Us" pages on their respective websites have the same addresses and phone-numbers.--Adam in MO Talk 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note It does not give you the right to remove part of the article Elchin Khalilov. Elm478 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 37 hits. Appears to be non-notable outside the organization. There appears to be a consensus to delete. T3h 1337 b0y 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Circle-jerk notability is just a circle-jerk, not notability.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verified for myself nominator's claim of circular dependence of notability ('circle-jerk notability') for GNFE and WOSCO. And we can add a new pseudoscientific outfit to watch out for too, 'IC Geochange.' All Google search results (ALL!) for GNFE are links to sites owned by WOSCO, IC Geochange, or even GNFE itself (but operating under a different domain name, eg, 'http://www.seismonet.org/'[17]') and even one site which claims affiliation with NATO (http://www.sfp-982167.org/), neato! Has the NATO logo and everything! Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of fluff in the article, but I can't see any independent secondary source with an indication that WP:ORG is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At me unpleasant feeling, that all statements have no relation to Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes and are based on personal hostility to its head Prof. Elchin Khalilov. I have checked up references on Global Network For The Forecasting of Earthquakes and GNFE and have found out many independent references in different languages in newspapers and on Websites not concerning in Prof. Khalilov: In English, Russian, Turkish, Kazakh, Ukrainian, Pakistan, Indonesian and others. I think, that for Wikipedia publication language does not matter. Look statistics - to this article the big interest. I think, that article is desirable for keeping. 217.168.176.3 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - • Sefer Ibrahim 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)— Sefer ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See WP:JUSTAVOTE. Nsk92 (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: a new editor has left a !vote on the talk page [18]. What is the standard procedure? Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the user was obviously confused. I am copying below his/her comment from the talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dear Colelagues, GNFE is a newly established organization, which aims to develop further the science of earthquake prediction. Scientific basis of articles are the case of braweness of its creators and followers to disseminate this information and helpraise world awareness on eathquake prediction options, which is essetially impportant in era of increase of nautral cataclysms. I vote for keeping both sites. Sincerely, Nilay Azklioglu, seismologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilayazakli (talk • contribs) — Nilayazakli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I can't see any evidence of WP:ORG being satisfied. Stephen (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per exhaustive nom. No evidence of notability. In particular, just 2 GS hits altogether, both of which are self-published and uncited PDFs. No GN hits. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, almost all sources are self-published. Secret ant (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign for notability yet. May be later. --Manco Capac (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear friends! we have to say THANK YOU this organization for the work! I am a scientist from Moscow and I know president Prof. Khalilov. He is great scientist. if you want I am ready to send to all who wish to magazines and articles about the global networks ana Elchin Khalilov. is a very serious international organization! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.3.186 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — 80.243.3.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Organization appears to actually exist, as per home page and numerous scientific publications. Article, while in need of cleanup and removal of self-propaganda and not relevant photos, is referenced. Charges of non-notability are POV. --MChew (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not imply notability. And what exactly are the "numerous scientific publications" you mention? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete - Fram makes very good points, but I do actually believe the organization is borderline notable. Atropatena seems to have several websites on it (including an International Academy of Science website [19] and a Gadjah Mada University research publication [20]) and while the article isn't exactly ideal, I think it could be cleaned up to focus more on the capabilities of the organization rather than its history. We just need to cut down on the primary sources and avoid the "circle-jerk" references - not too hard of a task, really. ceranthor 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the International Academy of Science is another of the same group of organisations involved with Khalilov.Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And note that the Gadjah Mada University source doesn't directly mention the GNFE, is primarily about an Indonesian endeavor, and is more of a blog-post than a peer-reviewed publication. Hardly "significant coverage" there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I reflect, I probably should have sided with a weak delete. I understand those references aren't really reliable - not really anything in the article is yet - but think that the sheer amount of them shows some degree of notability. Either way, I was canvassed too (by Earth Defender) and feel there is indeed some sort of sockpuppetry going on here. The article isn't ready for inclusion at this point. ceranthor 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Unless it has non-self published creditable sources, a much more neutral viewpoint and can actually provide reasons for it's necessity, I am inclined to favour a deletion of this article. --Mithril712 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Whilst technically being canvassed into looking at this discussion, I have tried to give as unbiased an opinion as possible.Mithril712 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert - User:Earth Defender (another sockpuppet) has canvassed 15 users to this discussion, while the banned User:Ismail Valiyev canvassed 7 on az.wiki. Oh, and User:Elm478 is yet another sock in this saga. They're really getting desperate at Khalilov's institute. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maybe I am a new user and do not quite understand all the rules of Wikipedia, but probably all understand the moral principles of Wikipedia. Removing part of the biography of the scientist to whom you have prejudiced, hostile attitude (referring to this discussion) without particular reason for this is contrary to these principles (My contribution to the article Elchin Khalilov should be encouraged rather than blame, because I improve it rather than delete as you do). I also assume in response to your statement "They're really getting desperate at Khalilov's institute" that article Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes and World Organization for Scientific Cooperation your attract negative attention only because of the fact that Elchin Khalilov is present in the leadership of these organizations. Then you should delete all the articles and close all the organizations in which may be his name? Elm478 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - I think we are discussing GNFE but not E.Khalilov.For you one person can't participate a few organizations?Instead of to edit and format the article you choose the easy way-delete. - --Earth Defender (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Except Elchin Khalilov there are other important persons in GNFE. For example, Dr. Ishfag Ahmad – State Adviser of Planning Committee of Pakistan in status of Federal Minister, President of Pakistan Academy of Sciences; His Loyal Highness Sultan and Governor of Indonesian Special Region of Yogyakarta Hamengku Buwono X ; Phd. Damir Khalikov-Head of the Department of Ministry of Emergency Situations of Kazakhstan, major general; Dr. M.Qasim Jan – Secretary General of Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Rector of Quaid-i-Azam University (Islamabad). --McWikiEarth (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)— McWikiEarth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But are there independent reliable sources confirming that those people are part of GNFE? If you have such sources, please add them to the article: I can't find any with Google. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added new sources to the article.These sources prove that marked persons participate in GNFE. Though these sources is not in english. --Earth Defender (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bahasa sources, at least, don't mention GNFE at all, nor do they link the indicated persons to GNFE; they simply repeat a press release saying a detector (not linked to GNFE) was installed in Indonesia, and Indonesian scientists are checking to see if it is effective. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think GNFE is enough global organisation. Atropatena station is only one of the project of GNFE. This organization is newly established that is why few sources. We must edit this article.But not delete. --FireFox 70 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)— FireFox 70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You may not realize it, but you are actually making an argument in favor of deletion. You should really read WP:N and WP:ORG. The fact that the organization is new and there are so few sources covering it is what makes this organization non-notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the first link in 'Additional independent sources', which supposedly references the statement "GNFE prediction has proven to be completely right" - I used the built-in translators in Chrome and in IE8, and there is absolutely nothing in the (very short) article that suggests that. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is no question about deleting. We should keep this useful info. GNFE has been given the lead role to plan and coordinate the national effort to mitigate earthquake losses by developing and applying earth science data and assessments essential for land-use planning, engineering design, and emergency preparedness decisions. Shahin Khalilov expert in sustainable development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahin Khalilov (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Shahin Khalilov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nsk92 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor blocked for canvassing inactive and blocked users regarding this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck-through !vote & comment of blocked editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A public relations exercise of low notability. No independent veridication. References are self-published. SV1XV (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article reads like a travel brochure, most of the users !voting keep in this discussion are neither legit nor aware of the nature of AfD, the article defenders actively tried to skew the AfD in their favor. No offense to the ARS, but you'd have better luck rescuing a standalone article on Roselia, since I don't see any way on God's green earth this AfD will end as anything but delete given all the chicanery. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still I'm a new member to Wikipedia. I really have found reliable and interesting info about the earthquakes which are actual nowadays. I think GNFE info should be kept.--SCN21 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)— SCN21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Walled garden, no notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In GNFE 4 countries participate. And there are enough sources. Qazaxstan, 1, 2, 3, Indonesia, 1, 2 , 3, Pakistan,1, 2 3.--Phd.Earth Science (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Phd.Earth Science (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'm completly amazed with a work that GNFE has done. I support the GNFE ideas and works. They are working for security of our nation. So let's support them. Phd. Geology —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Martini (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — John Martini (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep In the deal the article was nominated in AfD due to the presence in them name of the famous scientist in the field of seismology professor E. N. Khalilov. As I understand the principles of Wikipedia is - not allow personal dislike to any person.

The articles themselves have great importance in the world wide (for all search requests issued by the result of responding to all questions raised in the discussion). An undeniable fact (which shows listed references) — That the Atropatena prediction station has been installed and operates in Indonesia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and it is said that the organization trusted by the government of the host. Besides all this against a background of increasing seismic activity earthquake prediction is becoming one of the most topical issues in the world of science. I am a man who versed in seismology can safely say that there is no analogue of this system. All this shows the relevance, importance and notability of the articles. I believe that the articles should be keep for further editing. I am ready to spare all effort in improving the articles. Elm478 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyojitsu Combat

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

No evidence that this style has yet to achieve any kind of notability. Google returns about 3 hits on the exact phrase, including this article. — e. ripley\^talk 13:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN Armistice23 (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --DAJF (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ]]. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides this article, I can only find a link to a club in Wales. I don't think it's a hoax, but it certainly appears to be underground or non-notable. Papaursa (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly nn. Fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five (orchestras)

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

Lacking proper citaions, speculative

I have nominated this article for deletions for the following reasons: It is lacking inline citations; Portions of the article, notably the Modern Use section, appear to be original research; The article has been tagged with requests for citation for several months with no action taken.THD3 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with THD3. In addition to his reasons, this has really become an outdated concept. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: An article which needs improvement is not a valid reason for deletion. The concept is notable and was well used. Even if outdated, it remains notable. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Ivy League).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find multiple sources that confirm that five specific orchestras, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and Philadelphia, are known as the "big five" orchestras. While the article needs better citations, it does provide some names of authors, publications, and years for other sources for which it seems likely that the full citations will be locatable. Even if these five orchestras can no longer be considered to be the five best or most important ones in the U.S., the term is still used in reference to those particular five, even if sometimes preceded by the words "so-called". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A long-established term that merits coverage even if it is now outdated. --Deskford (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the term is outdated, but WP readers are likely to want to know what it means. I found this article to be helpful and informative, hardly deletion fodder. Opus33 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable but now of mainly historical usage (I haven't heard this term used seriously for many years, but it appears so often in the literature that readers may want to know what it means, how it came about, and where it went -- the stuff of an encyclopedia article). Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deskford and Antandrus. Although I'd agree the concept is out-moded, the term is still in wide use. I've just been adding multiple inline citations to this article. It's still used in sources published in 2006 and 2008, primarily with respect to arts management and issues of gender and race in the US classical music professions, and was used by the Cleveland Plain Dealer just yesterday. Incidentally, the issues cited in the nomination are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. It is a misuse of the AfD process to "enforce" clean-up. The term is clearly notable. I've removed some of the OR phrasing and editorializing. It could use a bit more + expansion, but that's no reason to take the proverbial sledge-hammer to a nut. Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above, articles needing work are not the same as articles needing to be deleted. And it's much improved now than it was when the discussion started. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable concept, outdatedness is not a reason for deletion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above comments. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no important reason to remove article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm478 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the article has now been sourced with inline citations- I didnt check all of them, but the ones I did check seemed legit. And even if the concept of the big five orchestras itself is no longer legitimate or popularly accepted, does not mean that the article about the concept should be deleted. (or we wouldnt have these articles: Jim Crow, Humorism, Reaganomics). Notability is not temporary. Active Banana (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Schultz

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT and WP:ATHLETE: hasn't yet played a professional match. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:ATH. Can be created when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He'll pass the notability bar eventually, but today is not the day. Reso lute 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His junior eligibility's expired and quite possibly he'll play professional hockey at some level, but "quite possibly" doesn't satisfy WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:CRYSTAL. RGTraynor 03:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He'll have an article someday I am sure but for now at least he's not notable. Raphie (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a third-rounder--if he was a first-rounder, he'd be an easy keep. Come back when you've signed a contract. Blueboy 96 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not yet meet the criteria for inclusion as defined at Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Ice_hockey. This article may be re-created after he plays in his first NHL game. Dolovis (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't won a significant amateur individual award nor has he played professionally. Once he does either, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails athlete. Though Im not entirely opposed to redirecting the article to his brothers page (Jeff Schultz) , since it would give(could) mentionOttawa4ever (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus whether it is notable enough after three weeks JForget 22:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Elvesjo

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

This person does not appear to be particularly notable; it appears to read like WP:RESUME rather than WP:N. This person has won some awards, but I'm not sure that the awards are notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I also have minor problems with the lack of inline citations and the non-English references. Overall, I simply think that this subject does not meet general notability guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 12:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline case. I wouldn't say that any of the awards are sufficiently notable to confer notability on their own, but taken together they could possibly be sufficient. Tomas e (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to concerns over notability and lack of reliable sources. Awards appear to be minor. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. - Pack of awards showing. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Chorosiński

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

Autobiography of professional musician, unsourced since 2009. I can't find evidence of notability per WP:BIO, but people who can read Polish may be able to. Sandstein 12:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also for the fact that the creator of the article seems to have conflict of interest, which is a flag. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can read Polish, but that doesn't really help because I can find no sources to read. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SS Englander: The Amazing True Story of Hitler's British Nazis

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

As a rusted-on Harry Turtledove fan, I'd really like to keep this article. However it would appear to fail the test for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the test for being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself with at least some of these works serving a general audience. As always, more that happy to be proved wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage about this book in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Faraz Anwar. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mizraab

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

This article related to a band is Not under WP:Notability#Band.There's no major source of the article. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faraz Anwar (their lead singer). The band doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria at WP:BAND, but Anwar himself seems to be notable, so the band could be covered in his article. Robofish (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:Music, the band is manetioned in Faraz Anwar article, Its not idependently notable and the Article in some parts not encyclopedic. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND redirect to Faraz Anwar.Farhikht (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aamras. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keri no ras

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

This article should be deleted as it just duplicates topic of Mango juice.There's no link or citation suggesting that Mango juice can be considered as a cuisine.It's article is also probably wrong. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mango - the article's in bad shape, but this dish isn't really the same as Mango juice, it's pulped, sugared mango. There's one piece of significant coverage in reliable source: [21], but unless more turns up there's no indication that the dish meets WP:GNG. I'll clean it up now. Claritas § 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Aamras. Seems to be a notable Gujarati dish, but we already have an article for pulped mango. Some coverage here.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aamras - appears to be the same thing, and some sources exist (enough for a brief article, at least). Robofish (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aamras - not enough content or sources for separate article, for now atleast. warrior 4321 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Raymond Franz. SilkTork *^YES! 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of Christian Freedom

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

No indication of notability. Notable information already covered at Raymond Franz. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Raymond Franz as article fails WP:NBOOKS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raymond Franz. Plausible search term need to delete the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Valley Coop

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

Non notable high school football team. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to assert any particular claim to notability in the text of the article, and I do not see any relevant Google News items, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. Strikehold (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning toward delete). I do think that an American high school's athletics program is generally worthy of mention in the school's article, but would never (or almost never) need to have its own article; the organizational problem here is that the team plays for three different schools. This information is already included at the article Lincoln Trail Conference as well as mentioned in the articles for Midland High School (Illinois) and Henry-Senachwine High School. (The third school in the coop, Lowpoint-Washburn High School, does not appear to have a Wikipedia article.) A merge and redirect to Lincoln Trail Conference might be appropriate, but as long as the term can be found at that article by searching "River Valley Coop" I suppose the merge/redirect is unnecessary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry gang, but not achieved level of notability needed for this particular encyclopedia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Recovery_(Eminem_album)#Singles. SilkTork *^YES! 20:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25 to Life (Eminem song)

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

This is a charted song from a main album. It has no independent coverage and is poorly written. Per WP:NSONGS it is not notable for an independent article Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree-no reason for AFD . The song is is a billboard charting song and one of the most liked from an album which sold 1.1 million copies in its first two weeks. I don't see a reason for deletion.

No reason for this AfD. Just redirect it. I'm the creater so I would care most to vote to keep it. Red Flag on the Right Side 00:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, Yes but often enough when i've done that there is always one editor who persists re-opening the article. This way there will be a consensus to keep the article redirected. If that's the case then pretty much everyone will vote to redirect. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) per WP:NSONGS, no individual notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing notable about this article is that it charted in Canada and the US. The rest of the article is irrelevant and unsourced. Due to the fact that at least 3 other songs from this album that weren't singles charted, we should delete this article and make a referenced table like so: (with the correct chart positions filled in and other charts if they made it there) Ground Z3R0 002 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Single chart positions

Year	Song	Chart positions
Year	Song	U.S. Billboard Hot 100	Canadian Hot 100
2010	"25 To Life"	92	90
	"Cold Wind Blows"	91	43
	"Won't Back Down"	96	-
	"Space Bound"	45	67
	"No Love"	-	86
	"Cinderella Man"	76	78
	"Talkin' 2 Myself"	67	89

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MailShare

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

Lack of sources showing notability of this product. Removed quite time ago from pl.wiki for being non-notable and unsourced. Sir Lothar (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third party coverage is absent. patsw (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't a polish mail system belong to be covered on pl? No 3rd party coverage. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made little changes and added sources - hope it's ok now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafcin12 (talk • contribs)
Delete I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the software in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A Wizard in Rhyme. There is a consensus to merge, though the target could be the author's page or to the series page. I am concerned that both those pages are unsourced. However, A Wizard in Rhyme seems an appropriate target, and the one I think most people want. That I am using that page as the target does not mean the page is notable, and does not prejudice anyone putting it up for discussion at AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Wizard

See also: Add these pages to this deletion discussion as they are all from the same series:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elektrik Shoos (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 July 2010

The above articles were listed here but not tagged for deletion. I have corrected this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I have moved and slightly adapted the above multi-afd comment made by Elektrik Shoos for overview sake Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources. Article was proposed for deletion with the reason given as "Fails notability criteria for books". PROD was removed with the edit summary "Removed notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion of those additional articles. Exactly the same applies to those articles as stated above, including, in almost all cases, the removal of PRODs with edit summary "Removed notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first modern fantasy book, and perhaps to date, the only modern fantasy book/series, to explore how the medieval Christians (in Europe) really saw the world, where the people saw God everywhere, and the Devil always lurking and looking for an opening.Snowybeagle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another distinction of the series is that the author made extensive use of real-world literature in the fiction in various references, bringing to mind how excellent writings can be fleshed out into "life" instead of being merely dead sentences. Snowybeagle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of that relates to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword here is guidelines - not rules. It means individuals have the discretion to decide how far and how much to apply.

I have consulted other fantasy novel articles such as Terry Brooks' novels - perhaps someone can clarify how those satisfy notability, and that would provide an objective measure to indicate how this series fall short of notability and hence identify which areas these articles can be improved to satisfy "notability". Snowybeagle (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF - If other article's don't meet a certain guideline that doesn't mean that any article is exempt from meeting the guideline merely because the others don't. In those cases other article's should be improved or removed as well, and not the other way around. I would equally point out that guidelines are still part of the Wikipedia WP:POLICY, and that these guideline's are written on the basis of large community wide consensus. Generally taken they should be followed unless clear reasons to deviate exist, or because the policy doesn't cover a certain grey area.

As for the requirements of an article i would point to Wikipedia:Notability (books), the guideline that deals specifically with books. This guideline is the baseline comparison for any book related article, and a measure to determine how notable an article is. Besides being notable this notability must also be Verifiable - in other words, the claims made in an article must be sourced though the usage of reliable third party sources. I hope this helps, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. elektrik SHOOS 07:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep all books by major author. I also own a copy of this book which means that it was published in multiple countries with many copies printed. It has also appeared as an audio book, and a variant in rhyme for children. It has spun off a game, and also has quite a few book reviews around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources giving substantial coverage to the books? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. No independent sources to in indicate notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single article on the series. Not Stasheff's most commerically successful work, but certainly a lot more notable than much of what passes for notability among books here (I know, almost an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument). The series is discussed, for example, in Buker's The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory: the librarian's guide to cyborgs, aliens, and sorcerers and one or more of the books were reviewed in various fantasy-friendly publications. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge all to the author's article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single article for the series under A Wizard in Rhyme with redirects for the other book titles (maybe that is implied by merge, I dunno). The author is certainly notable and this series was well known in its day. I'll look around and see what I can find for sources. UsernameRedacted (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I got this mixed up with Stasheff's Warlock series which seems to have more sources than this series--Stasheff himself is certainly notable, so I think that any of his books are likely search terms, so I still think merge. UsernameRedacted (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, various books in the series were reviewed in Locus (magazine)[[22]] UsernameRedacted (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Don't need an article on each book. RJFJR (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chesne

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

promo/spam for non-notable musician. Only links are Facebook, MySpace, youtube, etc. - Special-T (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any reliable Ghits about him or any of his albums. And it doesn't help that the article reads like a press release. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Erpert. None of the subject's discography has been significantly covered in RS.Armistice23 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kikuyu controversy

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

With all due respect, the importance of this topic just doesn't jump out at the reader. Melanesian obsession (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Notable article. Nom reported at ANI as possible sock. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - notable controversy and article. Nominator likely did not graduate from primary school.--Milowent (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether this person has notability independent of his clearly notable son or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William McKinley, Sr.

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

Noted only because of his relationship to a bona fide famous person, a la Britney Spears's mother. Melanesian obsession (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Nominator has been banned - this AfD was the start of a plan to attack the contributions of another editor.--Milowent (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though much coverage covers him in the context of his son, he is notable on his own for being a leading iron producer in Ohio in the 19th century. Many sources provide more detail, so the article could be expanded; does not need to be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the point of keeping this as his notability, independent of his son, is not show. If he's notable enough as an industrialist, we need some light shed on that. Delete, not opposed to re-creation or promt improvement. --Griseum (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Progenator of a World Leader, notable enough for me...but flag it as Stub-Needs improvement/expanding/additional sources. As far as the comparison to Spears' Mother: Actor vs World Leader: nb VulpineLady (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- VulpineLady, Wikipedia has specific guidelines stating that notability is NOT inherited (nor passed from children to parents, etc.) --Griseum (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This is a very interesting one. I don't think the Britney Spears comparison is correct. I'm on the fence because it's quite likely there's a lot discussed about him and he was notable in his own right, but I also think we have a past-awareness bias, where if someone's old we give them a pass. If this was a current industrialist of a mid-sized company would they warrant an article? On the other hand, articles this old don't have many of the same problems that contemporary articles on people of similar stature have. I'd be persuaded by additional discussion of the individual in sources. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy delete per A7. Article doesn't indicate notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a speedy delete.--Milowent (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William McKinley. Not inherently notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, and the article's brief enough that it can be incorporated into the one on his more famous son. It can always be recreated if stronger evidence of notability is found, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Robofish (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent Connormah^talk 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- some knucklehead IP switched the above vote to delete without explanation. Let's not get silly here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all parents of U. S. Presidents have their own articles, but if Millard Fillmore's father has one, surely McKinley is notable enough. I'm surprised that Woodrow Wilson's father doesn't have one. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fathers of 3 Presidents: Calvin Coolidge, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter served in their state legislatures-I started the article about Calvin Coolidge's father and worked on the article about Jimmy Carter's father. So notability is established with these men. On this article I agree with Milowent keep the article but add more sources. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fillmore's father - Thank you for pointing out that that is an article devoted to Nathaniel Fillmore. The Nathaniel Fillmore article should ALSO be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED. Several days have passed, and it still hasn't been demonstrated that William McKinley, Sr. is independently notable. I wish people would stop making arguments like "He raised a world leader" which is not a relevant criterion as explained in WP:NOTINHERITED. --Griseum (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He raised a world leader. Even if, arguendo, the parents of a dead president on the $500 Bill is not per se notable, this guy certainly is so. First off, he was a wealthy enough businessman to pay for his son to go to Albany Law School, a major proposition in the 19th century, rather than merely "read" for the law. Thus, he had to have been a big businessman in his day. Secondly, he had a New York Times obituary, which is one of the best ways to prove notability of a deceased American. Thirdly, there are already plenty of other sources in the article to prove notability. Finally, Melanesian obsession has been making several pointy nominations for some reason, so this nom should also be discounted. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful request for a speedy close per clear and convincing proof of sockpuppetry and trolling by the nominator. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, those aren't the criteria for a speedy close and there is a delete !vote above. Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-there is an article about Joseph R. Wilson, President Wilson's father-Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may need improving perhaps, but clearly he was notable enough in his time to have his own page now! TwoRiversWC (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC) (Note: User:TwoRiversWC has been banned as a sockpuppet.)[reply]
Delete His only significant accomplishment of his own was that he "operated a small pig-iron furnace in Niles, Ohio" [23]. Every reference cited is about his son the president, and only peripherally about him. In other words he is not the SUBJECT of significant coverage in reliable sources; he is a passing mention. Being the parent of a president does not automatically confer notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that one quoted source in the article says he "was one of the pioneer ironmasters of eastern Ohio". Getting mid-19th century newspaper references to Sr. that predate Jr's fame would require going to microfiche.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TWaver

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

Non-notable software/GUI toolkit. Appears lack significant third party coverage per WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without providing third party references the authors of this article have not met their WP:BURDEN. Miami33139 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This software claims that It provides a set of ready-to-use components and bussiness objects for building various telecommunication Business Support System (BSS), Operation Support System (OSS), Network Management System (NMS) and Element Management System (EMS) including network topology view, equipment view, maps, dashbord, node, link, group, rack, card and etc., whatever that means. Ah, three letter acronyms! At any rate, there's no indication that this software product has long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Software article with no 3rd party references or indication of notability. Created by single-issue user, so possible spam/advert. Dialectric (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first as a new user of wikipedia I just want to introduce the excellent TWaver to everyone, The only reason is I think TWaver really deserve it. Secondly, I try my best to describe it objectively, you can see how many customer it already has http://www.servasoftware.com/twaver.php?p_id=18. The reason why it is not "notable" like what you says it is only because TWaver is only focus on GUI of Telecom industry, and it is only a plug-in unit of the software. No company will post the news that they use a plug-in to do software development, right? At last, TWaver is really a outstanding plugin-in for network development, you guys can search "network TWaver".

It's my first article in wikipedia. Thanks. Swinggeek (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the reason why it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, if it doesn't do so then it doesn't warrant an article. However "outstanding" TWaver is, and however much it "really deserves" to be introduced to everyone, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Finally "I just want to introduce the excellent TWaver to everyone" means that you have written the article to promote TWaver, which is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know! Does anybody here know alcatel-lucent??? As a TWaver customer I has nothing else to argue with any more. Pick some "third-party" you know.

http://www.servasoftware.com/twaver.php?p_id=18 Swinggeek (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable for details on what reliable sourcing would entail. In suggesting the use of '3rd party' sources, I had meant sources from a neutral, reliable publication. That is, sources from an organization or individual that makes, distributes, or has some financial or other significant personal interest in the software would not be a neutral 3rd party. Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion under G12 criteria (copyright violation), and as a result, the nominator has chosen to withdraw their nomination for deletion. Non-admin closure. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make Beer At Home

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

While I feel bad nominating this since it's very detailed and the author put a lot of work into it, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere more appropriate? –Grondemar 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digest Hashing Algorithm

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

Article on a cryptographic hash function contributed by User:Aaboelela, who is almost certainly the Amr Aboelela credited in that article as the creator of the algorithm. Contains no independent references, no indication of notability, and almost no material on the specific hash algorithm itself, apart from promotional language and material that applies to any generic hash algorithm. Also, the externally linked images appear on an e-commerce site that appears related to the creator of the hash algorithm and the article on it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavia immer, yes it is true that the algorithm is developed by me. This algorithm is different from generic hashing algorithms, because as i explained in the page is that if you give other algorithms two similar items, you would get a totally different hash codes, as they are used for encryption or identification purposes. However, in the DHA if you give it two similar inputs (e.g. images), the algorithm would give you two similar hash codes, and that can help in indexing, sorting, and searching of the images. I believe this is the same way the brain work, it digests data as our stomach digest food.

I have master in Image Processing from UWO in Canada, hence this topic is related to my master research. Also i worked partially with a start up company called vufind to search for images and videos by content and not by text. This topic is hot right now in research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaboelela (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not for publishing original thought, and only time will tell whether your algorithm turns out to have historical or technical significance. That said, welcome to Wikipedia, and we'd be glad to have your contributions to subjects in your field or interests. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 16:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Live The Queen

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

There is no evidence that Lil' Kim is working on a new album under this title, according to a Google search. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to find an image that contains this title. — C M B J 02:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insufficient evidence. I'd like an article saying "Lil' Kim is recording a new album set to be released ____." Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely supplying the information that I was able to find. I wasn't arguing in favor of keeping the article; in fact, my opinion would be delete. — C M B J 20:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammertime until there are some reliable sources discussing it in some detail. Shadowjams (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's not nearly enough info available yet except the album cover (which itself might not even be real). Wikipedia will still be here when the album gets closer to reality and there is actually something to report. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per not a crystal ball and TenPoundHammer's Law.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be classified as an Epic fail as it fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. Red Flag on the Right Side 06:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the insufficient coverage, and premature creation of this article. Ga Be 19 05:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crystal ball. Hammertime indeed. Cliff smith ^talk 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Article already exists at Epic browser, which is in the middle of an AfD itself. Although I am not sure which article was created first, that article's AfD was created first. This article has also been redirected to that one. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epic (web browser)

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

This product was released today. It has had zero chance to become notable. The article was almost assuredly written to be promotional and the authoring user has no edits except to write this article. The included references are paid reviews (PC World), their press release (CIOL Bureau), and one press outlet that re-wrote the press release but obviously did not review or analyze the product (TopNews). The author quotes themselves by quoting the press, but referencing it to a 3rd party. They also reference their own claim (1500 plugins) by putting a 3rd party download directory as a reference. These references are a mockery of our third party sourcing requirements. Miami33139 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falling August

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

Fails WP:BAND. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Note that the band's own site states "By 1994, the band was beginning to run out of steam. This may have been due, in part, to the fact that sister-bands like Gigolo Aunts were exploding, while Falling August was still occasionally playing to an audience of three at venues like the Green Street Grill in Jamaica Plain at 1 a.m. on a school night (and that’s the pre-gentrification Green Street Grill, folks). " -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barobax

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

An attempt was made to nominate this article for deletion on the 9th by substituting the template directly onto the log. I reverted that and am completing a proper nomination. The original nomination rationale was "deleted before, the article assert some notability on Google mostly for a music video , not enough to meet WP:Music , no professional reviews" and the nominator is User:Spada2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Barobax is an underground Iranian band. How can there be professional reviews for a band that is banned in its home country? The notability of this underground band is demonstrated by the fact that their music sells on both iTunes and Amazon, and that they have produced professional videos despite censorship in Iran. The phenomenon of underground Iranian music is very noteworthy and if you delete this page then you'll be doing the Iranian censors a favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emahyar (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know about the situation in Iran but there are lots of high quality articles about Iranian musicians here plz remember that Wikipedia is not Facebook or Mysapce, plz read WP:Music, the article has been deleted before. (Plz write your opinion below not above!) link to Itune insted of references obviously an advert Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist to assert notability and 1,060,000 results in Google. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I said in my concerns, most G hits refer to a music video and download sites.not enough to meet WP:Music. if the band is that notable one should be able to find it in reliable sources too. from the other hand "barobax" is a slang form for "guys" in Persian, maybe some g hits refer to that. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added reliable references: a very popular Iranian magazine, BBC, and ARTE. This is a work in progress, I have more to read and to add to the page as I go along. But these three sources speak to the notability this band has had for a number of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emahyar (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of adding this band to Wikipedia is spread knowledge about notable cultural phenomenon: namely underground Iranian music. Underground Iranian music is not well known by any means and the purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge. Iranian musicians with high quality articles are mostly ones living in the West. This article, especially with the reliable secondary sources, is a start and more will be added as time goes by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emahyar (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw , reliable sources (BBC) provided by Emahyar , advert removed. plz dont add links to music stores! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Nova

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; zero GNews hits, zero nontrivial GBooks hits. Survived initial AFD in 2007 based on relaxed PORNBIO criteria no longer recognized as valid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't even pass PORNBIO in 2007. Epbr123 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notable mainly in a non-English-speaking country, therefore does not meet criteria set up by Wikipedia's biased editors. Dekkappai (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:PORNBIO is notoriously biased, and has been shown so numerous times, since it is only relevant to English-language North American porn stars. Applying it to non-English-language porn fails. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Find Sources template doesn't seem to work in Japanese... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingle

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition of an Australian slang turn of phrase. A google search shows that it certainly exists, if only for the first definition of a car accident. The question is though, does this belong in an encyclopedia? role^player 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. elektrik SHOOS 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Undeniably ubiquitous Australian slang term for a minor traffic accident, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds pretty spammy and promotional for the Bingle car insurance company... "Since the launch of value online car insurance brand bingle the word changed in the popular vernacular to mean bargain"? Hmmm. --Canley (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an encyclopedia is not a dictionary, and the article reads like blatant advertising. Mtiffany71(talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, made up. "Since the launch of value online car insurance brand bingle the word changed in the popular vernacular to mean bargain". No it has not. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Roy

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

This article is about a freelance journalist which does not meet notability. He is certainly a published joournalist. However trying to find significant coverage about him turns up not much. I found this. His coffee table book was excerpted in the NY Times. That's notu enough to establish notability for me, but this far from a clear cut case so bringin this to AFD for more eyes. Whpq (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was started by Wikipedia name "Rex from Detroit." Hmmmmm. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real columnist for a real newspaper, in fact, the 12th largest paper in the United States. I checked. An obvious keep. The article needs a general cleanup but that's not a reason to delete. patsw (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party commentary is in the article on him or his published material. He may be a prolific author but that doesn't mean he is notable. Miami33139 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Roy's column is not self-published. The multiple publishers who have decided to engage him are third parties. 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Question What is it about being a columnist for the 12th largest newspaper in the United States that you do not find notable? patsw (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not had substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. Simply authoring a large quantity of stuff is not criteria for inclusion. SPA issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What sort of multiple independent sources do you expect a newspaper columnist and author to have?

Comment He's an automotive columnist for a newspaper in the automobile capital of the U.S. He's written a book published by the major automotive genre publisher, and the book according to its Amazon page got reviewed by the people one would expect to review books in that genre. The delete arguments here resemble examples at WP:IDONTKNOWIT patsw (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Brill

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

Subject appears to be a "replacement" professional musician, which means he doesn't meet WP:BAND. The article uses a single source, which does not address the subject in detail. Found one other source that is also a trivial mention, so subject does not meet WP:GNG. Akerans (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the nominator is correct. Miami33139 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic pornographic actors

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

Most of these people are only marginally "hispanic." Unsourced "Original research." Melanesian obsession (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Amended rationale everything I said in my first nomination and I would add that this list if rife with actual and potential "Biography of Living Person" issues. Melanesian obsession (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:OR hyphenated Americanism. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC); * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't clear what "marginally 'hispanic'" means, and I can't find it anywhere as a reason for deletion. Every list member's biography should indicate that the person is Hispanic, and it should be supported by WP:RS. Poor sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally impractical as an encyclopedia article when one considers that pornographic actors are often represented as Latino or given Hispanic names when they are not. I can't imagine this article could ever be anything close to encyclopedic and accurate, so I am opining "thumbs down" on the basis of common sense rather than specific policy. --Griseum (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced pornotrivia of no serious scholarly value. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victim Rights Law Center

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

I've contested my own speedy tag on this one as the hangon rationale, on the talk page, asserts some marginal notability. However, I don't think it is enough to pass WP:CORP and WP:NOBLECAUSE. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources asserting the notability of this organization. (The Oregonian, Boston Globe) Gobonobo ^T ^C 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one in the Oregonian seems to be about an organization with the same name in Portland OR, not the one in Boston. Either way, it's a trivial mention. The one in boston.com is less trivial, but still insufficient. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law center has offices in both Boston and Portland. Gobonobo ^T ^C 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be marginally notable as described in Boston Globe and local press.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the quoted ref's are not significant enough to pass WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the references cited at the page, there are a bunch of others [24] in national Reliable Sources including the Washington Post and USA Today. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tibetan and Himalayan Library. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Machine Uni

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

Seems like a font like any other to me. No sign of notability, no secondary sources. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tibetan and Himalayan Library, which it was developed for. Fences&Windows 18:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Athletics at the 2010 South American Games. There are several incidents of individual sports events being broken out into standalone articles, though sometimes, as with this one, there is little sense of the benefit gained, especially when the sub-article mainly repeats the information contained in the parent article. Such practise is contrary to guidelines - see WP:Sports event and WP:AVOIDSPLIT as well as the spirit of WP:Not, WP:MERGE and WP:Stub which indicates that articles which do not have obvious potential to grow are probably best not being created, or if they are created then they should be merged. If there were a gain of material, then splitting is appropriate, but splitting simply to duplicate the material into a new place is not helpful. There are some items of information contained in this article which can be easily incorporated in the parent article (the finishing times), but mostly it is repetition. I would support anyone going through Category:Athletics at the 2010 South American Games and merging where appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2010 South American Games – Women's 4 x 400m relay

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

There are a whole string of articles based on one this set of games. There is not much notable about the specific event itself, and it surely belongs as part of the main article, where the bulk of the detail currently exists. This seems to be contrary to WP:Encyclopaedic and is something more akin to a specific sports or athletic site. billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of an established series of articles for events like this (Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc). Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per nom. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the articles in the parent category? Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be merged into a parent article IMHO. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that these individual events are like the individual dates issues, and not notable as individual events, instead as the collection. I would support them being moved to the Portal namespace and then organising them as subpages, allowing the article on the 2010 South American Games to act as the encyclopaedic article. With regard to the Olympic Games, Commonwealth games etc. I would believe that the bulk of the articles fall into the same category, and that there may be an article or two that is notable within each games that could stand as an notable article itself. billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment by User:billinghurst. Maashatra11 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to someone redirecting later after AFD close, as an editor-decision. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elin Harries

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

fails WP:ENT. one role only. she doesn't even have an IMDB listing. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect stub to Pobol y Cwm where she has sourcable context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability. Even if the program in which she currently appears is notable, notability is not heritable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lacks independent notability... and that is why a redirect of a reasonable search term will suffice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loughton Residents Association

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

Residents association that does not satisfy the notability guidelines, has no references or reasons stating its notability. -- Jack?! 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage in reliable sources see [25] , --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable local residents association. Its stated rationale for notability, that it has "unusually, elected councillors at all three levels of local government" is not that unusual at all. In many rural locations throughout the UK residents associations and parish councils tend to have all local government representatives sitting on them. -- role^player 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That the writer finds it "very unusual" that a specific group has members who have been "elected councillors at all three levels of local government" makes that fact trivial, not notable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharko

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

Article shows nothing to satisfy notability. No references on the article and little coverage on searching. Per WP:BAND -- Jack?! 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Belgian band appears to have its coverage primarily in French. [26], [27] are examples. As my French is rather pathetic, I'm not digging any further but this google news search would indicate there is coverage in French available to establish notabiltiy -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band seems to be notable enough in the French-speaking world. Don't know why people who don't speak the language would think they have some special insight into French or Belgian culture to decide what lacks notability.Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthwall Cinema

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

per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, slang, and/or idiom guide and not neologism. Mostly failed verification. The only information properly sourced is that which is related to the film FrICTION (the second paragraph). Basically, it is the only sourced Fourthwall Cinema film and one film does not make a movement. Google Searches for "Fourth wall Cinema" and "Fourthwall Cinema" bring up nothing of note. Kollision (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Kollision (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fourth wall#Film & television, where the concept has its sourced context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject lacks notability. Unsourced claims that certain films fall into this made-up category are or border on original research.Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Affairs (Event Planning and Production Company)

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

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. This is an essentially advertising article about an event planning business that fails to establish significance. While it apparently has references, they all appear to be puff pieces in minor trade publications with local or limited readership. There's no indication that this business "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." And while the fact that The company has a staff of 10 may not in itself establish non-notability, the article does not really say anything that suggests that they aren't just another firm in the field. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.
Weak keep - it is spammy, but several of the sources look reliable - in particular the business journals, which are syndicated and well-known. It seems, therefore, to be barely notable. I am leaning towards a keep, but the "peacock language" has to go. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That some of the sources may be reliable, I grant. But I'm not sure that anything they say, or for that matter anything the article says, establishes the "long-term historical notability" of this business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True! That's why I think it's a weak keep. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The sources are very unimpressive - mostly press releases plus a few "business briefs". One actual article, in the Pacific Business News, about the company/its founder, dating from 2008. IMO this doesn't amount to "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re-hashing press releases and appearing in local business briefs is not substantial coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. However, I notice from the article's history that the nominator is the only substantial contributor. Therefore, it might be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G7. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baumrind's four styles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baumrind's four styles

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

This content was copied from Parenting style before a major edit there. I didn't intend this article to exist by itself, which is why I had made it a sub-page of Parenting style. All of the useful content is still present on other articles. Rixs (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not split the articles though? I am not sure if Baumrind's four necessarily needs to be part of the Parenting article. If it is a trend in parenting thinking, it might have enough notability for independent status. Sadads (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This text is fundamentally about parenting styles, and so that other page is the proper place to explain it. Having looked into the topic of parenting, I've found no better theoretical overview of parenting styles. She set out to structure the topic of parenting styles, and she achieved it very well. So splitting it makes no sense to me. The text in this article was only copied out as a backup. Not for real use. I have no problem with the notability. It surely is noteable. -- Rixs (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two of us that care about this page. I created it as a COPY of existing material on Parenting styles in a sub-page before editing. Then Sadads moved it to be a major article. It is still a DUPLICATE of the material, now reworked, on Parenting styles. This page is an unnecessary orphan. -- Rixs (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile discography}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advantages of server support and monitoring}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Transport}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Transport}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriton arsenis}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single point of resolution}}