Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:11, 8 August 2010

< 7 August	9 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hangry

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

PROD removed. Speedy declined (by IP). Neologism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDICT and total failure of WP:V; a local website and Urbandictionary.com (although the latter is quite amusing) are not nearly enough notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I am totally saving this somewhere, though,[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to NOTDICT and complete lack of substance Mahewa (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I couldn't find any Ghits except for what Blade pointed out. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:NEO. Ryan Norton 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedlete Carrite (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my position from above, but I wanted to copy over a comment left on the discussion page so it's included, since it appears that the user wasn't aware the discussion happens here. I think it has to be interpreted as a Keep.--‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the purpose of encyclopedias is to categorize the entire range of human knowledge, the entry for hangry is entirely appropriate for wikipedia. While the use of hangry is localized to specific geographic areas in the United States, such as Washington DC and parts in the north east, it is used and therefore deserves to be including in a site categorizing the entire range of knowledge. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.151.62 (talk

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etsuyo Ota

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. The best reference I could find was this but any registered user can edit it and it still, in my opinion, does not give enough to confer notability. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for nearly four years. J04n(talk page) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to prove notability, unreferenced for years. Markiewp (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this will stir someone up to find things. Mind you, I haven't found much - and so far nothing worth finding. Peridon (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seriously unsourced for nearly four years and fails the verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V Jeepday (talk) 00:16, 12 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow Public School

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

Insignificant article about a local private school posted for self promotion. DELETE SanskritGuy (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It includes a secondary school, which we normally consider notable - and it has TEN THOUSAND students on five campuses. There is a lot of trivia in it which could be deleted, but the school is significant and it definitely deserves an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources, nobody knows if any of this is true. They could for example have only 50 students and pretend to have 10000 so that their article is kept. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school according to established practice, and fix up the article, also according to established practice. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 14 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Donski

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

This person has written some minor books on history. None of them have been peer reviewed or taken seriously by mainstream historians, or used as references. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, have been used as references in Wikipedia and would certainly be rejected as reliable sources. The article seems more like self-promotion and there has been debate to that effect in the talk page. The article has been tagged for some time. Politis (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally appended to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Baar. All I did was fix the nomination formatting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably eligible simply because it's an unreferenced BLP anyways. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 05:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete – this author is somewhat notable in the sense of being notorious in the field of certain nationalist polemics, and it would certainly be no problem finding coverage of him by his opponents (such as the guy who wrote The Ten Lies of Macedonism), but since most of these will in turn also fail to constitute reliable sources, and we have next to nothing sourced on him as a person (biographical detail etc.), it's probably better to let the article go. Note that the article has in the past fluctuated between being promotional and being an attack page and there had to be admin intervention after OTRS complaints [1][2][3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It strike me that the titles of his books suggest that he is a purveyor of FRINGE views. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem I have with this subject is that I can't determine whether he is notable or not. The guy has written a lot of books, none of which I have heard of -- but this doesn't mean anything. None of them are cited in Wikipedia articles -- but, again, this doesn't mean anything. This is really a case where I have to rely on just how much I trust the judgment of my fellow Wikipedians. If this article has been the target of any OTRS tickets, maybe the best solution would be to delete it. But I suspect there are countless articles in the same state as this one: possibly undesirable articles which only an expert can determine whether they should be kept or deleted. And as Wikipedia's scope grows, the number of these problematic articles will increase. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an author, His books are in almost no Worldcat libraries (That wouldn't be definitive if they were all in Macedonian, but it applies to his English ones also.) DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 14 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 keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Jones

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. PROD removed with no explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a star, certainly, but a longstanding actor with a respectable body of work. I have added referenced information that suggests that he is worthy of note. (And I apologize for not explaining why I contested the prod and for not mentioning my intention to improve the article. I only discovered that it was on the verge of deletion just after midnight my time, and making the article presentable-looking was all I had the time and energy for.)--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The article does look a lot better but IMHO the guy still fails GNG and BIO. IMDB and IBDB aren't reliable sources and the linked reviews spend about 2 1/2 paragraphs on Jones. The award nomination really isn't enough either, although the film festival is probably sufficiently notable for an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvements. Rarely does a review of a play in its disection of plot and theme and staging spend more than a sentence or two on any particular player, so the occasional 2-1/2 paragraphs addressing an individual and praising his work in contextual relationship to the production itself specifically meets WP:GNG in being more than a trivial mention, even if not the main topic of the source material. And one might note, that while IMDB and IBDB are unsuitable for sourcing notability, they are usually okay for simple verifications of released works, just as are the works themselves. So I have no doubt that the individual's career meets the instructions at WP:ENT in his having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". All that is needed is some work and improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 27 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:23, 8 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 delete. JForget 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Casper Styles

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

This is a recently created WP:BLP of a young person who is an active proponent of professional wrestling. The editor creating the page appears to be a single purpose account with the same name as the subject of the page, raising issues of WP:COI. On first glance, the page appears to claim significant notability. However, on close examination, it fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. All of the external links that are presented as "sources" go to websites such as Facebook pages that were created promotionally by the subject. Searches of Google News (as well as Google Books and Google Scholar) yield zero hits for the subject name. Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: apparent hoax, no reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 01:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's literally a hoax, more a vanity page, but it's clearly a no-brainer for delete. I would have put it up for CSD, but the page claims notability. I put it up for PROD, but the template was reverted. User:JackCasperStyles, the creator of the page, keeps deleting the template for this AfD as well, but does not appear interested in responding to requests to justify the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax in the sense that I don't think the kid has any relationship to the WWE aside from being a fan.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the kid should keep his own fan page restricted to the "WWE Universe" where it is more appropriate. MPJ -US 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:JackCasperStyles keeps deleting the template, even though I repeatedly tell him at his user talk that he should not do so. Assuming that the decision is delete, please consider salting the page as well. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JackCasperStyles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked until he agrees to stop removing the AFD template.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kww. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N considerably. A google search did not return any third party reputable credibility for this kid. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt, after a second glance, it is easy to see that this article is not of a notable person at all. The article is also written very poorly and is not categorizes. And from what I have read above the page needs to be salted, so it will not be created again. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:43, 13 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henry Croxall

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

Nominated for speedy a few days ago but was declined, so I'm bringing it here. This is a fairly published author - but only a few medical books were published it seems. Citations given were for a Google Books scan of one of his works, as well as a listing. I'm not clear on publications on this one, and I'm bringing it here because I think there may be some controversy about this. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and I can't find other sources for TH Croxall that I can point to on the Internet. I've added an article about his translation of Johannes Climacus and his assessment of the book. I believe that Croxall is significant because he worked to bring Kierkegaard's writing to Christians. Many references used in your article about Soren Kierkegaard leave 1921-1959 completely out except for Heidegger and Sartre. Let's have more Swensen, Lowrie, and Croxall. User talk:11614soup 8:02, 25 July 2010 (CST)
Keep, though modestly so. The article is not so good--it's written like an essay, and its references are confused and confusing. I made a few minor edits and added a citation. There seems to be plenty of mention of Croxall's translation of some of K's works, and his Glimpses and Impressions is quite often referred to, though he doesn't get cited and discussed very often--typical for a translator, I imagine. So, I'm going to say keep, because I think that a. more can be found and b. the number of references to his work (even though the ones I looked at lack substantial discussion) indicate notability. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone has access to a bigger database than does my employer, they could pull up this citation, which suggests (from a Google Scholar search) that Croxall's work may have been relatively unique (well, in the sense of rare) for his time. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several other articles had material added to them recently by an IP editor using Jens Staubrand's recent Kierkegaard Bibliography (ISBN 978 87 92510 05 1) which would perhaps assist in extending and referencing this article on Croxall and his works. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not the world's clearest article but that's not an AfD call. Croxall does seem to be significant in English-speaking reception of Kierkegaard. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant as an author and editor. Some of his books about Kierkegaard are in more than two hundred libraries, a/c Worldcat [4] DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 14 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 keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GG Bond

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

The page is filled with false and unneeded information, and the topic is not notable or widely known. BenderRobot (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for the 2009 "Best Domestic Animation" at Shanghai TV Festival. Winner of the 2009 KAKU Annual "Best Animated Series" as reported by Beijing Review. GG Bond character listed as one of China’s "Top 10 Animation Characters" of 2010 by China Toy Trade. We need Chinese-reading Wikipedians to translate sources found through a nominal search. Style and sourcing can then be addressed through regular editing. Being unknown in the West means nothing if can be determined as notable to a nation of billions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 12 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr. Schmidt. Clean up as necessary if there are inaccuracies. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:21, 22 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hodge (Jackass actress)

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

Non-notable actress with just a cameo appearance in a film, music video, television show, and magazine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 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 delete. JForget 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hangry

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

PROD removed. Speedy declined (by IP). Neologism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDICT and total failure of WP:V; a local website and Urbandictionary.com (although the latter is quite amusing) are not nearly enough notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I am totally saving this somewhere, though,[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to NOTDICT and complete lack of substance Mahewa (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I couldn't find any Ghits except for what Blade pointed out. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:NEO. Ryan Norton 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedlete Carrite (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my position from above, but I wanted to copy over a comment left on the discussion page so it's included, since it appears that the user wasn't aware the discussion happens here. I think it has to be interpreted as a Keep.--‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the purpose of encyclopedias is to categorize the entire range of human knowledge, the entry for hangry is entirely appropriate for wikipedia. While the use of hangry is localized to specific geographic areas in the United States, such as Washington DC and parts in the north east, it is used and therefore deserves to be including in a site categorizing the entire range of knowledge. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.151.62 (talk

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Morris

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish WP:N. Can find things that she has written but nothing written about her. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for three years. J04n(talk page) 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned, unreferenced after years - nothing o prove notability. Markiewp (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some blogs on the page do make references. Fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 00:18, 12 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 delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 4

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

Article has been suspected as hoax. Particularly the show can not confirm the fourth season.

Speedy delete as nominator. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I removed the speedy delete tag earlier, but I didn't look nto it close enough. It does appear to be a blatant hoax. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when the article will be delete right away, it will SALT and will create the article if the Canadian reality TV show will may confirm by CTV and 10x10 Entertainment. ApprenticeFan ^work 16:04, 8 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 Keep 85.211.126.241 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Cottrez

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

This is a sad and tragic case, and a sensational case, but it is material for a newspaper, not for an encyclopedia. It will no doubt be argued that it must be notable because it has been in all the papers, but that does not follow: the GNG itself says:

...significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

This is such a case: per WP:NOT#NEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is more suitable for Wikinews: I would propose a transwiki, but unfortunately license incompatibility means that is not possible. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 8 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The women is a self confessed serial killer, clearly notable. How famous, or rather infamous does a person need to be, to be included in Wikipedia? The women is a child killer. This article needs cleaned, wikified and linked into other articles of the same ilk. scope_creep (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the face, it's a standard WP:NOTNEWS case - onetime event about lady who killed her 8 children, but the gravity of it makes it an edge case; or does it? Serial killers are fairly common, there really isn't any thing that unusual that I can see, I could be wrong though. Ryan Norton 08:27, 16 August 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) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the problem of having newsworthy events written up as articles immediately. If we dont write it, it looks silly if its notable, and if we write it and its obviously a news cycle filler, it doesnt belong here and makes us look unprofessional. i get that. but she killed 8 of her own children. Hello? I think it is safe to say that there WILL be hundreds of news articles, many books, endless commentary, and her image in every book on serial killers/mass murderers starting within a year. Serial killers are NOT that common. its just that with 7 billion people, we have a larger number each year. even more uncommon are females, and more so than that, females who kill their child, and even more so, females who kill most or all of their children, and even more notable, such females with 8 or more children. I wish people would stop invoking "one event" as if being known only for one event means someone is not notable. would lee harvey oswald have had an article on WP in 1962? no, but his doings in 62 are sure notable now. She is notable for one event, but that one event is highly notable. we wont know how notable she is for other parts of her life until the biographers have written them. i would suggest a rename to something like Dominique Cottrez murders if people dont want her as the subject, but that may seem contrived.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment wasn't really a !vote either way; you have some good points. I was kind of trying to think of an alternative to keeping a pure bio article, but I don't see one; as you mention would be awkward to call it "Dominique Cottrez massacre" or something. At that point it is an editorial matter I suppose though... Ryan Norton 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as #Mercurywoodrose above, I get the difficulty of separating "ephemerally prominent" from "permanently noteworthy", and that that's not always easy without the perspective of time. But is there really much doubt about this one? Eight of her own children? The Fritzl article is under Fritzl case - how about Dominique Cottrez case? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above; I like HeartofaDog's suggestion for the pagename as well. Ryan Norton 19:25, 22 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amel bouchoucha

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

Amel Bouchoucha finished tenth in the fifth series of Star Academy Arab World, but she does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines beyond that appearance. Rje (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both above. CTJF83 chat 20:54, 22 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 no consensus. Courcelles 03:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Manchester

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

This list is unsuitable for Wikipedia. As it stands, it is obviously incomplete, and probably always will be. There are, certainly, notable streets in Manchester, but this would be better served as a category. Currently, it's a violation of WP:OR, as it's only a "selection" based on the author's preference. Aiken ♫ 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. While categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, this is essentially a directory, and may have OR issues. --Claritas § 16:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a list. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. The article is in a terrible state, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by normal editing (WP:BEFORE#10 - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD"). Also part of a bigger scheme of similar articles. Lugnuts (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, it cannot be fixed - it would violate WP:NOTDIR if it included every single street - and there must be thousands, most of which are not at all notable. And the "scheme" isn't big. Note, for example, there is no List of streets in London which has many more notable streets. Individual streets are notable, but streets as a whole in Manchester are not. Hence it fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR, WP:OR to name a few. Are you going to fix this article? Aiken ♫ 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, just done so. Are you going to stop hounding people who disagree with your deletionism mantra? Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't fixed it. It still violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT etc. And I am not a deletionist. Despite your resort to name-calling, I simply think this "article" has no place on Wikipedia, due to its violation of so many policies and guidelines. Doesn't make me a deletionist, anymore than it makes you an inclusionist. Aiken ♫ 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Bizarre nomination; this is clearly an appropriate use for a list. – iride scent 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing clear about it at all. It violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:N, so hardly "bizarre" either. Aiken ♫ 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it listed every street in Manchester, it would violate WP:NOTDIR. It doesn't, and it doesn't. A list of significant streets, significant buildings etc is a perfectly acceptable use of the list format; replacing it with a category would show only those streets which already have articles, while the purpose of a list is also to show those which should have articles. There are many lists, up to and including FL-level lists, which include huge numbers of redlinks or currently unlinked entries, or which list only an arbitrarily-chosen subset of a much larger group—see List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, List of HIV-positive people, Listed buildings in Runcorn, List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove or List of snow events in Florida, for example. – iride scent 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says a street is "significant"? It violates WP:OR and always will. Aiken ♫ 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm this makes no sense to me. If a street or road has an Article, that is able to survive the scrutiny of other editors, then consensus says "it is significant". Besides, we are not discussing the significance of each individual road Article. This discussion was about the List. If you wish to 'go down that road' please do so at Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense that we should have a list for streets. Streets, as I already explained, can be notable on their own. Manchester has many notable streets, as do most cities. However, streets in general are not notable. It is the exception, rather than the rule that they are noteworthy. Unlike, say, Grade I listed buildings, not every one is of importance to have an article of. One could argue that, if that is the case, we can list the streets regardless. But that would be violating WP:NOT. However, listing only a selection, even if they are only the "notable" ones would still violate WP:OR, because it is not up to Wikipedians to decide if something is notable - that is done by sources. Which brings me to the point: there are no sources that state Manchester's streets are notable, in general. As mentioned, listed buildings are notable. Monarchs are notable. Countries are notable. Lots of things are. But streets are not. As this is the case, a category will suffice. Otherwise, we are keeping a list of a non-notable concept (individual streets), that lack any kind of sources and is pure original research for which streets get included. Aiken ♫ 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you have given are all worthy of being a list, as the topics they represent are notable (a place, listed buildings, places of worship, etc). Streets are generally not notable - they are run-of-the-nill things, encountered every single day. The notable ones are individually notable and don't make any sense in an incomplete list, especially one where they have been handpicked, without any apparent criteria. The article is currently a handpicked selection, which we should not do - all notable examples should be included - and if every street was listed, it would be a vio of WP:NOTDIR. This list serves no purpose - it doesn't do what it says it does, and violates policies in order to do it. Aiken ♫ 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands, this article doesn't make sense, because there's no logic to having an arbitrary "selection" of streets. However, a list of notable streets in Manchester would make more sense. The only question is whether it's worth having this on top of a category. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought along the same lines, and I don't believe a list is worth it. Aiken ♫ 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EXPANDED There, that wasn't too difficult. I've started work on an expansion to this, adding a table, a few refs. Now this has more info than could possibly be gleaned from looking at a category. Lugnuts (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list. Seriously inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the are all surface roads, they are all in Manchester, thus discrimination is made. IMO it should be trimmed to Notable streets, as a road gains itself an article, then it can be added to the list. May I suggest that it move to a format more like List of roads in Baltimore County, Maryland or List of county routes in Humboldt County, Iowa (both of which have survived similar, poorly thought out, nominations). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all poorly thought out. On the contrary, I give solid reasons why this article should not exist. You, on the other hand, have not shown how such a concept is notable (it isn't) and instead resorted to attacking the nomination, and give a wishywashy "other stuff exists, so it's all good" non-argument. When we keep non-notable collections of indiscriminate information, like lists of non-notable streets, we begin a slippery slope towards keeping lists of endless, pointless things about everything. What's next, List of walls in Manchester, List of trees in Manchester, List of atoms in Manchester? We are not a compendium of everything that ever existed. Streets, non-notable ones, are everyday things and do not need documenting on Wikipedia, unless they are a notable concept/idea. They are not. Aiken ♫ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I suggested that the List should survive because something else does. I suggested that it move to a more informative format, such as the ones I suggested. I acknowledge that every Article in WP must stand on their own individual merits, WP:N with Citations included. But how each of us Find that Article, may be different. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a made up list better covered by Category:Streets in Manchester. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN is your friend. Lugnuts (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW is it "better covered" by a Cat? A Cat cannot make the link between the road and what Notable locations are on it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this article were to be kept, Wikipedia could end up with a whole load of "List of streets in city/town/village" in the United Kingdom. It should be deleted, ~~or at least renamed as "List of notable streets in Manchester"~~.--HLE (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with that? There are already other street list articles. The word "notable" shouldn't be used in an article title, as it's implied by being on WP in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already do, as a matter of fact 2 Articles. It's just that they are called Motorways on that side of the pond. see List of motorways in the United Kingdom & Lists of roads in the United Kingdom, should we not try to make the listing whole and complete? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorways are probably always notable. The other list article you mention is for notable A-roads, which are essentially the next major road level after motorways. This article is not listing A roads so it cannot be compared. Aiken ♫ 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are a different Class of road makes no difference. They are roads, in a predefined area. They could be Dirt Roads for all that matters. Their individual notability is explained on their own page. They can be listed togeather. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a massive difference. Motorways, in my guess, are always going to be notable, simply because of their nature of all being built in the past 60 years, so will have ample coverage and notability. Dirt tracks probably won't. Ordinary streets are, generally, not notable. I'm sure you can agree on this. Most of the millions of streets in the world contain ordinary houses, with ordinary people living in them. Nothing notable. There are exceptions, but as notable streets in x are the exception, it becomes difficult to define criteria for a list: example, do we include red links when we have no idea if a street is notable or not? Who gets to decide? Where is Manchester anyway? Is it the City, the centre, or the district? This list just has no hope to become anything useful. Aiken ♫ 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. All the "List of streets in X" pages should be deleted, not just this particular page. Otherwise we may as well copy a list of all the streets from the Manchester Street AZ Atlas, and when that is done do the same for any other city, town and village in the United Kingdom, and beyond. Wikipedia would change from over 3 million to over 4 or 5 million pages. I agree it makes sense to have lists of tallest buildings and structures, films set, mills, and schools in Manchester. But List of streets in Manchester is going too far. What next "List of bus shelters in Manchester" and "List of postboxes in Manchester". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory.--HLE (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have a list of streets - if it was determined that streets in X are notable in general. For example, London might be able to claim that. And yet, there is no List of streets in London. Here we are with a list of random streets in Manchester, with no apparent criteria or general notability - might as well have List of houses in Manchester and List of shops in Manchester along with the bus stops and postboxes. I don't understand how this list is so necessary to Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HLE, Please take the argument that all List of roads in xxx should be deleted, to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) as it is well beyond the scope of this AFD. We are attempting to gain a consensus about this list, not all lists. Aiken, What does "if it was determined that streets in X are notable in general." mean? Are you saying that ALL the streets in an area must be notable collectivly for there to be a List article? Because if you are I believe you greatly misunderstand the point of a list. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is fine to use street list articles, List of motorways in the United Kingdom, Lists of roads in the United Kingdom, etc. in the argument, even though they are well beyond the scope of this AFD. But if I use them I'm told to take the argument to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). Double standards here.--HLE (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on that link to suggest that non-notable concepts, such as streets, should be made into lists. We'll be moving onto bus stops and post boxes before we know it. We're not a compendium of everything that ever existed, only notable things, and we're not the Manchester A-Z. Aiken ♫ 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have articles on the streets themselves there is no reason not to have the relevant list articles. Wikipedia includes gazetteer information as a matter of course. MRSC (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have articles on all the streets, only a select few - a clear vio of WP:NOT. Aiken ♫ 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's potentional for them to be created, making your arguement redundant. Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not every street is notable, so there isn't potential (for most of them). Aiken ♫ 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter that ALL the streets are not notable, The point of a List it to group togeather a list of the notable ones, Red Links are encouraged to promote the creation of Articles. Agin, I will point you towards the point of a list. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the purpose of lists, and there is nothing that suggests non-notable concepts (such as streets) should be included on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is some potential. Lugnuts (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you're using edit summaries like "more fail" - it's quite rude really. And, no, there is no potential for most streets. We're not a compendium of everything that ever existed. Not every street is notable, it's more the exception than the rule - they are run of the mill things, most with ordinary houses with ordinary people living in them. Please stop trying to insist otherwise. I'm not against road articles - far from it - but I am against non-notable ones in list form, and so is policy. Aiken ♫ 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to insist otherwise. Unlike you? Many of these streets are notable - you are wrong. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these streets are notable. I never suggested otherwise. You're suggesting that they all have potential. They don't. And please stop with the obnoxious edit summaries. Aiken ♫ 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think that this is a useful page as it is about every street in Manchester and is not about a single un-notable street. Hamish Griffin (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is about every street in Manchester..." Have you looked at the list? It's a handpicked selection of 65 streets, some which are debatably not even streets (Piccadilly Gardens and Albert Square). There are thousands of streets in Manchester. Aiken ♫ 14:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could easily be renamed once kept - compare List of streets and squares in Lyon, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is better to have such a page than loads of seperate short stubs on inidividual streets. Useful as a reference point. Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restructure to ensure that only notable streets can be included -- The purpose of a list of this kind is to identify article that are needed whcih will appear in it as redlinks. Some of the streets may need an article, but most will not. We should not encourage the creation of stub articles on NN streets, but that is what this list would tend to do in its present form. I do not object to streets called "Square" or "Gardens" in principle. However (unless the objective is to generate substantive articles) a category does the job much better than a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where there is a category, there should in general be a list. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. 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. If the list needs cleaning up and reorganizing, that is not an argument for deletion, but for keeping and fixing. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 14 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Company of Seven

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

Delete. Non-notable theatre company, fails WP:GROUP. References all allude to self-published history of the company. Total absence of any multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources as required. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This company has over 40 years of history involving many famous directors and performers from theatre companies from South Australian Film Corp to State theatre of SA. It is a significant vault of theatrical history in South Australia and one of the longest running companies around. The history will be lost if its not allowed to be published. We Haven't had a chance to get the references up yet we are so busy trying to learn how to use this facility. Sven Knutsen 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvensterK (talk • contribs) — SvensterK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"We haven't had a chance to get the references up yet"? I think you need to read WP:COI (and especially WP:AUTO. Anyway, delete. This name was hard to Google for, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. The only Gnews hit I found uses the phrase but is about a different subject. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was the company's history not already published (in A Personal Recollection' The Company of Seven Theatre Group's History 1949-1989, as stated in the article)? The Wikipedia article looks suspiciously like a copyvio from said article. If you are merely looking for a web presence then you should be mindful of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the group's longevity and the fact that its (self-published) history is kept by several major libraries, it seems plausible that a case for notability could be made if appropriate sources are found (and the massive WP:AUTO issues are fixed). Said sources would likely be found in older, probably regional newspapers and thus very unlikely candidates for a successful google search. The Millicent Library would be a good start. However in the absence of any independent sources coming to light it is a very clear delete.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:51, 10 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clairyfy my earlier comment, I believed it was quite possible that a motivated editor might be able to produce a reliably sourced assertion of notability ("we haven't had time to get the sources up"). COI isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion, but failing to provide reliable sources when prompted certainly is. Delete --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:43, 21 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, What Would Happen

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

I was unable to find reliable sources which provide significant coverage for this show. The sources I could find just provide trivial coverage of it in a list of other shows. Although it is returning, the subject does not appear notable per the WP:GNG. Although I am not nominating the article with this one, I did WP:PROD a similar article, Bobb'e Says, and feel I should mention it here in case someone wishes to contest it. Odie5533 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep TV shows are generally considered notable if they made it past a couple episodes. This one lasted two seasons, but there aren't too many sources on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TPH and WP:OUTCOMES we generally keep such show articles, but I wouldn't object to merging this into a list of similar shows. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To both of the above users, you mention that they are "generally considered notable" and "we generally keep such show articles". I would ask that you consider this specific case. I have not found multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage for this show. If you have, please share them. If you have not, I ask that you examine the subject of the article more carefully as single example rather than in general. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. I found only a couple of sources, but I still think they're enough to give this one a pass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you would be willing to share these sources it would be much appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Television shows are part of mass popular culture and the public consciousness. This particular page is well-done to boot. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every television show warrants an article. Please read WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines at Wikipedia, which provides well-supported criteria for determining if a subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, I am not contending the contents of the page but the existence of it. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above AND per coverage in Animation Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, Atalanta Journal-Constitution, Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, Birmingham News, Bloomberg, Deseret News, Futon Critic, TV by the Numbers, Columbus Dispatch, Washington Post, and more... with a gentle suggestion toward a slightly more thorough WP:BEFORE, and attention to WP:IMPROVE, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:ATD before a nomination is made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see this is headed for a speedy keep. But I must protest. Every single one of those sources provides only trivial coverage of the show. Open each one in a tab and [CTRL] + [F] for the word dude:
  1. Animation Magazine – Two sentences about the show in a list of other shows
  2. Christian Science Monitor – the show's name is only mentioned in a sentence with other show's names.
  3. Atalanta Journal-Constitution – One sentence mentioning the show
  4. Hollywood Reporter – "[...] the wacky-experiment series Dude, What Would Happen [...]" that's all this source says about the show.
  5. USA Today – "Reality series Destroy Build Destroy and Dude, What Would Happen will be joined by a pair of live-action mysteries centered on teen characters: Unnatural History, due June 13, is set at a Washington museum, while Tower Prep involves a rebellious boy trapped at an escape-proof prep school."
  6. Birmingham News – Appears on a list of many, MANY other shows by the network: "Dude, What Would Happen: This series stars three teens who ask and answer questions such as, "Dude, what would happen if you attached 350 helium balloons to a sumo wrestler?""
  7. Bloomberg – An interview which says, "In mid-August, Cartoon premiered its two latest shows, Bobb'e Says, about a kid who goes around telling people what not to do, and Dude, What Would Happen, about three curious teens who conduct quirky science experiments."
  8. Futon Critic – A press release. Not a secondary source.
  9. TV by the Numbers – This reference does not even mention the show at all. One of the anonymous users commenting on the article mentions the show.
  10. Columbus Dispatch – The very last paragraph mentions the show in a single sentence after discussing half a dozen other shows: "Dude, What Would Happen features a group of teenage boys who try stunts such as installing a lemonade tank under the hood of a car."
  11. Washington Post – Cartoon Network kicks off Season 2 of live-action shows "Dude, What Would Happen" (at 8) and "Destroy Build Destroy" (at 8:30).

I looked through many sources before nominating this article for deletion. I do not believe it meets the notability guidelines as no source is both secondary and provides significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The error under which you are laboring is your thought that the guideline WP:GNG is the only consideration toward notability. If that were so, there would be absoulutely no reason for any other criteria to exist. Indeed, many topics meet GNG in spades and yet do not survive as stand-alone articles, as the GNG is not the only criteria that may be considered... and too, each and every guideline is headed by the caution "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As long as the article does not violate WP:NOT, those exceptions are determined through consensus of editors in the discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe a sufficient argument has been advanced that this would qualify as an exception to the GNG. There are lots of subjects which receive repeated and minor mention in newspapers and other reliable sources. I believe, as apparently do many others, that significant coverage is necessary to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Not only does significant coverage help to determine the notability of the subject, but creating an article requires more information than a few brief mentions at the tail-end of a newspaper article can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie5533 (talk • contribs) 02:38, August 13, 2010

Your personal belief in the GNG as if it were the grail, while laudable, is not supported by consensus, as a majority of editors do not agree with it being the ONLY pertinant criteria. While yes, meeting the GNG is often indicative of a presumption of notability, it is a rebuttable presumption... and many articles fail meriting a stand-alone even after far surpassing the requirements of the GNG. At odds with your argument is that consensus has long established that a failure to meet the GNG is not an automatic failure of WP:N, as notability may be also met by meeting subsidiary guidelines, or through consensus of commenting editors (agree with them or not) that may then create the allowable occasional exception. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 13 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 merge to History_of_New_York_City_transportation. Though not sure how to organize the below content so I will let the parties decided what to put there. JForget 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hylan's "emergency bus lines"

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

Not notable. In the creation edit summary, the author stated that the article was started solely for taking notes on the talk page. Also, the title's use of quotes violates WP:AT. Train2104 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History_of_New_York_City_transportation. It isn't mentioned at all in the article on NYC transportation, but it definitely isn't notable enough or have enough content for its own article. --Slon02 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History_of_New_York_City_transportation per Slon02, although I would like to point out that there's more detail on the talk page of that article than in the article itself. This should be part of the content of this chapter once the article is merged. ----DanTD (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What an idiotic list, dragging down the appearance of Wikipedia. All that is needed is a note of this happening in History of New York City transportation. Nageh (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge but do not keep- I cannot see what use this iist is as a stand-alone.--Kudpung (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:32, 8 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 delete. JForget 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandiseeg Troll Theory

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

Note to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also delete Gandiseeg troll theory. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed prod; Appears to consist entirely of original research. Quasihuman (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up one day. Chris (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A whopping nine Ghits; all Wikipedia or message boards. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:01, 8 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 delete. JForget 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Comrie

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

Football player who hasn't played for full international side nor for professional first team. Fails WP:ATHLETE Quentin X (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability criteria. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has never played first team and possibly may never, fails NSPORTS,no in depth coverage recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:11, 12 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 delete. JForget 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McLaughlin

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

Football player who hasn't played for full international side nor for professional first team. Fails WP:ATHLETE Quentin X (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Article asserts its own NSPORTS failure. no significant coverage outside general sports journalism and nothing that covers subject in detail. recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 12 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 keep. JForget 00:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torair

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

Article creator removed PROD template without addressing the issues. Concern:

Very small operator, one aircraft, no scheduled routes.
Önly started operating in 2008
Possibly fails at WP:CORP because the article is also unreferenced and does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about this aircraft operator should be included in an encyclopedia.
Ghits only provide directory entries Kudpung (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Non-notable; very minor airline and no coverage in reliable sources (I've checked for Swedish ones). Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found using the "Tor Air" name. In addition to those currently used in the article, there's [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Operator has an ICAO code and callsign and although it only has one aircraft (a Boeing 737 airliner) makes it worth keeping. Only started in 2008 is not a bar at having an article. Doesnt operate scheduled services because it is a charter operator. I have added some info from the Flight airlines directory so article is now referenced. Really just a stub that needs more work. And probably needs moving to Tor Air if article is kept. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the size of the fleet does not matter; that it operates on behalf of other airlines and has no routes of its own does not matter; that it started operating in 2008 does not matter. I had no trouble in finding non-directory Ghits, and have added some more info to the article; sufficient to establish notability IMO. The name is incorrect and the article does require renaming if kept. YSSYguy (talk) 14:04, 10 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Joe Williams

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, lacks references to significant coverage 3rd party. Common name makes searching for references more difficult but based on the size of the town, this mayor is not likely to meet WP:POLITICIAN either. RadioFan (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn.--RadioFan (talk) 12:39, 8 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 keep. NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hughes (radio)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. This radio personality/journalist does not appear to meet WP:GNG. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for nearly four years. J04n(talk page) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete few sources and don't think being editor-in-chief of Lavalife or Amazon.ca merits an article. Round the Horne (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to prove notability, seems to be an ordinary person working in media. Markiewp (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone doing a job. And no references to show any notability that might be is in fact real. Peridon (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although GBooks shows that Hughes has written for Billboard, GBooks/Scholar/News Archive fail to indicate that Hughes meets the conditions for notability required on Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Changed to keep - see below[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N as mentioned above. Jeepday (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry I did not come across this discussion earlier, but Kim Hughes was "one of the best-known music radio personalities in Canada" in the 1990s. That's not just my opinion, it's a direct quote from Canadian Musician magazine, which I just cited in the article. In 1999 the Toronto Star called her "one of the Toronto pop-music industry's most respected and influential figures". As she was "regarded as an important figure", the subject meets WP:BIO. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of the sources found by Paul Erik that have been added to the article I am adding a keep vote. I will not withdraw the nomination just yet as there were a significant number of delete !votes, so I'll let them decide if they want to change. If they change their !votes I'll withdraw. J04n(talk page) 13:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Argolin (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by Paul Erik - well found! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:32, 14 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative wind orchestra with majorettes "Dimitar Mechev"

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

Youth orchestra of unknown notability. Unsourced except for a link to a local news website and the band's own websites; no indication of outside coverage; no independent reliable documentation of the prizes claimed and the nature and notability of the competitions in which they were won. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Does not cite any reference and looks like and advertisement.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation (Author): I appreciate your will to keep Wikipedia clean. As a matter of fact, I always insist that there is mush spam and advertisement over the World Wide Web and I respect Wikipedia for the order the administrators and experienced users keep here. But what I am trying to explain is that this article is the largest single information source for the band (just tired of calling it "orchestra"), as it is composed of the information on several old papers. I can sware before you that this article is not an advertisement, nor just an additional number of edits to my profile statistics. The page you want to delete is just a collaboration of all avaliable to me sources and it's goal is to help whoever wants to know something about the orchestra to read it, instead of making him serach old brochures. I understand that there are no references and citations, but I coundn't find any over the internet except for the ones I posted. If you think that this arcticle is not approptiate for Wikipedia, I give you the full right to delete it. On the other hand you can see that this is not the most useless and uncited arcticle in Wikipedia and (I don't want to argue, I just want to leave this article in Wikipedia), as you can see, the Nottingham Youth Orchestra article is permitted just because of the web site posted. I took a look and found it outdated and with the relatively same contents, as the references I posted for my article. So, if you refuse leaving the article I could create a web site with the same contents as the article and all the article could be cited. I will not do that, but think for yourself, is refering to material of unknown source better than not refering to anything?

Sincirely yours, Ianis G. Vasilev. As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 12:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC). —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Author: Nevermind, is the article better now? As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 06:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianis G. Vasilev (talk • contribs)

Keep: Seems to be notable under the criteria established at WP:MUSN. From the links given, the orchestra appears to be very significant in its home city and this is verifiable. Also, it has participated in major national and international events: see for example here: a government source which mentions its participation in a wind orcestra festival in Greece. Also, this major wind orchestra festival (it has participants from outside the country, so it can be considered significant) describes the orchestra at length, also confirming its participation in multiple festivals.
The problem is that practically all of these sources are in Bulgarian, but it's never been Wikipedia policy to deny notability just because there are no English sources. Kostja (talk) 20:08, 12 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Kostja. scope_creep (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article documents the group's history well, albeit using poor English, but this does not change the fact that it still does meet the criteria for WP:BAND or WP:MUSICBIO. It still appears to be a youth musical ensemble that plays local festivals. This is not sufficient. --Crunch (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Delete Deeply unsourced, no evidfacen n=of notability (I have found no news hits on them).Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author: First - Sorry about my English. Second - According to the last criteria for WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO this article is valid as the orchestra had a few national broadcasts, including a recent one on radio Horizon (part of the Bulgarian National Radio network) on the 5th of June, 2010. The broadcast was about one hour, so according to this criteria, the orchestra is concidered notable (I will soon post a source). Still, it is not as notable as others, but I preserve my argument with the Nottingham Youth Orchestra (Which has approximately the same search results on Google Search and Bing) As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted pending source hinted at above, although right now I would close as delete

Delete. Probably should be merged to its parent chitalishte (except there is no such article). If I read this right, this is like a school orchestra. What's going to be difficult is that sources will likely come from the Bulgarian press. Note that there is apparently no equivalent Bulgarian wikipedia entry for this orchestra. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and everyone above. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author: As I already mentioned, the orchestra had a few national broadcasts, including a recent one on the 5th on June this year (See article's sources). It has also multiple recordings, but most of them amateur, so I will post the records made by the Bulgarian National Radio as soon as I find them. Also, the orchestra has many articles in the "Tempo" newspaper, Velingrad's weekly newspaper (Some of them included in the External links section). We can argue about the triviality of the newspaper, but it is neither owned by the orchestra, neither depends on it. So I think bots the first and last criteria of WP:BAND are satisfied. The problem is probably the lack of english sources (The orchestra has no tours to the UK, US or other english-speaking countries) and no bulgarian article, but I promise to translate this article to Bulgarian as soon as this dispute is over, no matter what will be the result. As I love to say: The genius is always simple! 10:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nura Zhinus Watson

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

Non notable student who appeared in a few amateur productions as a child. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No WP:RS, just wiki mirrors Jezhotwells (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Maybe is afew years... but now? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ENT. No major label record release, no more than short-term roles on TV. --Closeapple (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. yep the consensus seems quite evident now JForget 00:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat Ghayur

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

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

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

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

Strong Delete I agree that this person was one of the brilliant police officers in Pakistan but he is not notable to be placed here. He was a Grade-20 Police Officers, those we have around 3000 in entire Pakistan, only. He was the 58th Commandant of Frontier Constabulary, we never had article about any of the first 57s. The article also seems to story of a Magazine or Newspaper, especially written and edited in favour the martyred and beloved Safwat Ghayoor, rather a simple article. There are even no citations for many claims. --TurnWorst (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — MARWAT 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I can only say that this one time editor has come back to haunt my articles by unnecessarily nominating them for deletion. This martyred Officer was a Vanguard against the current fight against Terrorism. One of his junior Malik Saad, who was also martyred in a suicide bomb blast has also been graced with an entry on Wikipedia. A simple Google with his name will yield thousands of results as seen over here [9]. Perhaps the sentiments of the entire Pashtun population can be summed up in this article which recently appeared in a leading daily of Pakistan [10]. This nomination is nothing else but a joke and based entirely on bad faith, perhaps as a sore retaliation to my earlier blocking of certain vanity entries of this user's sock puppets. I recommend a strong keep to honour this commander of War against Terrorism. -- MARWAT 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear -- MARWAT , please comment on objections raised by me instead of hanky pankies. Malik Saad was much Sr. to Safwat Ghayur, you are wrong. Malik Saad has an article because he is recepient of Presidential Medal. Malik Saad, whom you have given as a reference in support of this article was CCPO (Capial City Police Officer), an officer of Grade-20. Let me know how many other CCPOs of Pakistan are having article here on Wikpedia? None, as they doesn't qualify as per WP Notability. Please see the deletion log for aother CCPO Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. The only distinguish between Malik Saad and other CCPOs is Presidential Medal. As far as Safwat is concerned he, no qualm, was a second name of gallant and also the frontline soldier in War Against Terror. But what makes him so notable? Just google, yahoo and other search engines? I am a journalist myself, as my articles are published on various internet sites, different newspapers and magazines, my name will bear links to hundreds of websites where I am given very good place but it doesn't mean that I am too notable having name on search engine at hundreds of places. Why not Safwat Ghayur, ex-Commandant of Frontier Constabulary having an article before his martyrdom, if he was so notable? Just martyrdom makes him notable? If yes, then where are the articles of 600 other polie officers, 7-10 thousands of soldiers and many civilians who were martyred in War Against Terror? If being Commandant FC makes him so notable so where are the articles about the previous Commandants from the times of British Raj till December 2009, till the transfer of last Commandant Zafar ul Lah Khan, who was even serving in Grade-21 and is even promoted to the level of Director General of FIA? Why are you quoting a blog's link by terming it a leading newspaper? Wikipedia is not a racial forum or sentimental avenue where one culd presurrise and break the laws. I think rather arguing on a baseless thing with baseless arguments, we must spare time for creating healthy articles. --TurnWorst (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I have nothing more to say except that you are the same editor who has been vandalizing my earlier articles. As for your mumbo-jumbo about Grades, I can only say that you must be kidding by mentioning some God Damn Grades over here in utter disrespect of the sacrifice made by these brave lads of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. As for your absurdities regarding Ismail Khan’s eulogy to the Martyr published in Daily Dawn’s edition of 9th August 2010, which I had earlier on linked from a blog, I may like to give you now the actual link over here [11]. Please go there and read it with utmost care. Now something about the seniority and juniority of Malik Saad Shaheed and Safwat Ghayur Shaheed. Malik Saad Shaheed was from 17th Common Batch of Civil Services and Safwat Ghayur Shaheed was from 9th Common Batch of Civil Services. Please correct your unreferenced record. And without taking away anything from the valor of Malik Saad Shaheed and his Medals or Laurels, let me humbly say that may be you are aware of the fact that Government of Pakistan has already, as a beginning, announced one of the Highest Civil Gallantry Award known as Sitara-i-Shujaat for Safwat Ghayur Shaheed (the reference is already provided in the main article). I have nothing more to say and the closing editor will decide for himself/herself as to how much biased this nomination is. -- MARWAT 05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why personal attacks on me, this is the article regarding the deletion of safwat Ghayur not to discuss me. Suppose I am the most-wanted and the No. 1 bandit of the does it makes this article notable or non-notable? If I am the world No.1 liar but I say that Sky is Blue and you quarrel no it is black, so should everyone believe you because I am so so so? why aren't you refering to the objections I raised?

The government has announced so far and not hooured him with the Sitara-i-Shujaat. Even if it is honoured, like it is honoured to thousands of men and women, does it make him notable? Where are the articles about the rest of recepeitns of the same awards? I agree Safwat was from 9th common and Malik Saad from 17th but who was promoted first to Grade-20? It was Malik Saad. So Safwat stands Jr to him. Malik Saad was CCPO back in 2006 and Safwat became in 2008-09. I request to closing editor, that for a while curse be upon me if I am the same person with whom my fellow is confusing me with, but just examine and go-through the objections I have raised here about the non-notability. Were they replied or answered accordingly? Attacking me, rather answering my querries shows that how much intrest was there to create a non-notable and personal liked article. --TurnWorst (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Closing Editor(s) / Administrators Please go to the following links, where -- MARWAT is asking, pleading and requesting his fellows to cast their vote in the favour of this article. This shows how biasedly this article Safwat Ghayur was created. He have no solid answers about the objections I raised. Please follow and see the following
User talk:Zakksez ‎
User talk:Haider
User talk:Double edge86
User talk:Ketabtoon
User talk:Afghana
User talk:Kamran4
User talk:Pahari Sahib

The Operators / Admns and Closing Edtior could now theirsevles understand that who is setling the scores and who is righteous. --TurnWorst (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You probably aren't aware of these Gentlemen/Users. They are all members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun and so am I. Contrary to you they are all genuine and rational editors and I hope they step in and cast their opinion over here so as to show your absurdity. -- MARWAT 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take into account he there are plenty of other grade 20 officers in Pakistan but not many get acknowledged by the DAWN newspaper (Pakistans leading English newspaper) bureau chief (Ismail Khan) for a province. The fact is he led several operations against militants at a time when many officers have been transferring themselves out of high profile jobs and leaving the province. His acknowledgement by the state deserves mention and gives him notability. The article does need a rewrite to prevent it appearing a puff piece and to make it more readable to those not familiar with the region but those are areas of improvement not grounds for deletion. Zak (talk)

Comment No body, who is voting Keep this article is replying the objections I have raised in favour of deletion of this article. The comments of the above two users are either against me or in personal favour of Safwat Ghayur, as they even know that many many officers are getting themselves out of province and on the other hand Safwat Ghayur, who was out of province for long -time since 2001 (the start of War Against Terror) till his death. You are lying to manipulate the deletion of this article, he was out of this province for 6 years out of 9 years of War Agains Terrorism. Many many officers martyred in War Against Terrorism, please create articles for thoe, wether Pakistani, Afghanistani, American, British and so so. Please abuse me, I will forgive you, curse me, I will forgive you, but atleast reply and answer, infact clear the objections raised by me in favour of this article's deletion. --TurnWorst (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be confusing the context of the article. It is the particular circumstances to his death and events prior to that ..which make the article notable. It could well benefit from a thorough edit, but the fact remains his death is notable. There are many other ex commandant FC's around but none of whom died while fighting the tehrik-e-taliban. All officers and people are not equal because context changes the event. If he had died of cancer or some illness he would not likely have deserved an article but he was murdered in the line of duty in unique circumstances. That makes him different. yoiu are right many others have died in similar circumstances but that is like saying Daniel Pearl was a journalist so his death wasn't notable. Or in a pakistani context can you name all the Supreme Court bar Association chiefs prior to Aitzaz Ahsan? unlikely, but despite being more a politician, Aitzaz is a notable character while most of the other SCBA Presidents are not..as such I shall continue to support the retaining of this article..with the caveat that it needs better editing & referencing Zak (talk)

Comment Yes, I can name all the presidents prior to Aitezaz Ahsan. They are Akram Sheikh, Hamid Khan, Malik Abdul Qayyum, Munir A Malik. What else? Please do not detrack or drag the dicsussion away to divert the attention of Closing Editor, just clear the objections. But once again no one is replying or clearing the objecions raised in favour of deletion of this article at the third paragraph (above). You must not manipulate the articles, clear the objections, please. --TurnWorst (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've always been one to walk into places I'm not supposed to be in... First, for those who want a link to the article in question it's Safwat Ghayur. Second, Wikipedia is not for memorials. However, there could be notability here. Third, would the combatants above please give up on personalities and get down to a Wikipedia rules based discussion of the article? The former presidents of wherever are irrelevant. So are the 57 predecessors of the subject here. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Peridon - Exactly my point. The user TurnWorst is bringing in absolutely unnecessary things. Besides Safwat Ghayur was a hero and died as a hero and that's why the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of the four provinces of Pakistan, announced an official one day mourning in memory of this gentleman [12]. This fact has been duly published in prestigious New York Times as well [13]. -- MARWAT 01:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment The provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also announced another official one day moirning within past month after the myrtyrdom of Mian Rashid Hussein, the assasinated son of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Information Minister, Mian Iftikhar Hussein. So is Mian Rashid Hussein a notable too? Mr. -- MARWAT who brought unnecessary things you or me? Who detracked the subject by personal attacks me or you? Closing Editor please note that none of he objections rasied, in the third paragraph of this page (above) are answered or cleared by any so far, rather -- MARWAT have spoiled the discussion by taunts and personal attacks. --TurnWorst (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm calling on both of you to stop it now. I'm not saying who started it, who carried it on, or whose fault it is. You may not agree with each other, but try to behave in an appropriate manner by Wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:BLOCK. Will you please confine the discussion to matters relevant to the article, and in particular to the application of the relevant Wikipedia policies to the article? Virtually none of this lot so far will be considered by the closing admin as relevant to the topic in hand. I'm investigating the coverage of the subject at present, and will reach my own conclusion before long. Peridon (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThough, I have been using Wikipedia around for quite sometime but when I came across this article and notification of discussion for deletion, I felt like making some point. In my point of view Mr. Sifwat Ghayyur is notable enough to have this page on Wikipedia and I have reasons of my such belief in the light of 'Notability Guidelines' provided by Wikipedia. I would like to put forward my points one by one:

Basic Criteria

After his death, Mr. Sifwat Ghayyur has been the subject of published secondary source material in mainstream media of Pakistan, Please have a look at the following links of News Items Published in his memory by leading Newspapers:

[14] [15] [16]

Here, it is worthy of mention that though, the depth of coverage might not appear substantial but multiple sources can be quoted since by being there in the Country, I have observed that almost all the main stream newspapers, periodicals and TV Channels gave hours of their precious airtime to the coverage of his death. In my view this satisfies, to an extent the Basic Criteria. I am sure, that in the days to come, when the History of War against Terrorism will be written out of news items, Mr. Ghayyur will stand one as an ideology and will be subject of Published Secondary Source of Material.

Additional Criteria

1. Government of Pakistan has announced Sitara-i-Shujaat, in recognition of his services. Sitara-i-Shujaat is a Civil Award for Galantary[17].

2. During his stay at National Police Academy as Course Commander for 25th and 26th Common Training Program, he contributed a great deal towards introduction of New Ideas of Policing in Context of Pakistan. Those, ideas are still in vogue in Police Service of Pakistan. The Officers and Ranks of Police Service of Pakistan, considers his style of Policing as something no less than an ideology. He is revered as an academician to all those who were his students at National Police Academy.

3. Sifwat Ghayyur, is highly respected as a Professional for his unique style of Policing, many new fellows coming to service, tend to adopt his techniques.

Tail Piece

Further, The Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia Suggests Flexibility for its development, this page can stay there for all those who want to know about this man like myself.

Morever, I would like to add that, Mr. Ghayyur never claimed his prominence due to his strong family background, therefore, people commenting in his favour should avoid him being notable on such unimportant grounds.

Lastly, I would like to say that Mr. Ghayyur, in Pakistani Context, is someone, who will be remembered as a gentleman who is highly respected as a thorough professional who served Pakistan and International Community being a front runner in War Against Terror and laid his life in the line of duty. He might not be notable enough to have this page up running on wikipedia but his notability is more than this page and it will remain important, up and running, to all those who happened to see him in the Service of Mankind.

DFMPK (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might I suggest that if notability BEFORE his death could be established better, there would be less problem. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Listen Pal, with reference to your earlier warning to me and TurnWorst, I can only point it out to you to kindly check the nomination date of this article for deletion and the date on which the account of user TurnWorst was created. Supposedly this user has been blocked earlier on as well for using multiple socks and I can name a few over here such as LineofWisdom and Marwat786, while there were others as well. My major suspicion comes from their style of English and specifically nominating my articles. The current Geo Location once again zooms on the same person who is Identified as [redacted]. Having said that, let me say that I am in no way drifting from the issue at hand and have been repeatedly pointing at the notability of the person in question. Dude, I am a genuine editor of Wikipedia and the fact can be established from the history of my edits. This article was my creation and I have every right to defend it over here. -- MARWAT 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Attention Editor Please check that DFMPK (talk) just created account to cast his vote in favour, as -- MARWAT has invited and aksed many Users earlier to cast their votes by leaving messages on their talk page. The aforementione user, for sure have created new ID to vote in favour of this article. I am not sure but what I have understood by going through some pages recently, that -- MARWAT is strictly warned for posting (a assumed so far) my name and address. Whatever, but his recent acts shows that his efforts are to humiliate or disgrace me personally as I have challenged the notability of his article. WHy isn't he responding to objection I have raised? Doesn't his non-responding of objections proves that he himself is sure about the non-otability of the article? The article be deleted as he is failed to prove notability before the martyrdom of Safwat Ghayur --TurnWorst (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't know if this is a good-faith nomination or not, and frankly, I have no stomach to read through the tripe posted above by the two main parties in what seems to be a pissing contest. What I do know is that while the article may be in terrible shape, there are sources to establish the subject's notability. His death was notable enough to be noted in The New York Times, in Dawn, and in other sources. Alive, he was relevant as well--ABC News called him the "Wyatt Earp" of Pakistan, and throughout 2009 he was quoted often enough. Let's close this and put a stop to this ugly, ugly AfD, that I got involved with involuntarily. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Drmies, notability is pretty clearly established prior to subject's death, and additional posthumous coverage by multiple independent organizations, news sources, and government agencies confirms it. Doc Tropics 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Long time no see, Doc. Learn Dutch yet? ;) Drmies (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wat zou het punt zijn? Zou het voor de grote Nederlandse literatuur, of het fijne voedsel zijn? No, really I just enjoy stalking you....Doc Tropics 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of reliable coverage. I've no objection to a Speedy Keep, but possibly it should run its course to avoid suspicions of bias. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work for a news producer in North America. Safwat Ghayur's name just came up in an interview with a scholar studying Pashtuns, who grew up in Peshawar: "We as children … remember his [SG's] stories." I probably had sufficient info to verify the name from the "Frontier Constabulary" article, but I always appreciate having more info than I need. So the article was helpful in my case, which suggests that it may be (or has been) helpful to other news organizations as well. Adelphious (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking just at the article, there seem to be sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 13 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkweed Latex Gasoline

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

Original request for deletion was placed on the WP:Energy talk page saying "Found this page Milkweed Latex Gasoline while on 'new page patrol'. Very poorly written, with little clear info and a sketchy reference. Before I spend any more time trying to improve it, could I get some input on how to proceed? There is a good page on milkweed Asclepias that only says that no commericial use for milkweed as a fuel as of yet. Don't want to delete something that might actually need a page, and don't have the knowledge to make the decision. I can work on it, if people think it's worth it. Please let me know. thnx. Nihola (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Another editor added ":Delete Given that the creator of the page hasn't given any reason at all why Milkweed Latex Gasoline is notable, nor any evidence that it actually exists, why should the page exist at all? Ernestfax^Talk 07:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC))"[reply]

I personally also think that in its current stage the deletion and, if necessary, expansion of Asclepias articles would be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 9 August 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, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is atrociously written, but the contents are essentially correct. Euphorbia is a know biofuel source, and is listed in numerous primary and secondary sources detailing it's specific use as a potential biofuel for the future. The article really needs expanded and linked into renewable energy, biofuel articles. scope_creep (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that Euphorbia could be used as biofuel source and definitely this should be added into the relevant article. However, there is no such thing as 'Milkweed Latex Gasoline'. There is no even search results for this name except Wikipedia and its derivatives. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, or even of existence, of the topic. If Euphorbia is a known biofuel source that information could be added there, or at Asclepias (it's not clear which is being referred to). No need to merge - this is so badly written that it's difficult to see anything here that's of use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to Euphorbia as there's debate about this terminology and sucject can be covered in the main article. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G1, patent nonsense. Calvin, a 20th century biochemist who discovered the Calvin cycle isn't the discover of Euphorbia (a genus first described by Linnaeus). Milkweeds aren't in the genus Euphorbia or in the Euphorbiaceae at all. It's a string of random nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) No longer gibberish - Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poorly titled and written but has some basis in fact.[18]. Melburnian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read a few articles, moved it to an appropriate page name, removed all of the content, wrote a brief paragraph. It's now an article. It wasn't. If someone had asked the plant project earlier it might have saved 14 days of air space for this nonsense and its discussion. Done. {{subst:4tilde}} (<- This was User:JaRoad)

~~delete~~ - Who is ever going to search or find this article or the one called Hydrocarbon plant? The info should be merged into latex and Euphorbiaceae as Guettarda recommends. Hardyplants (talk)

Changing to Keep I added a source that can be used to fill out a satisfactory start to the article; it covers problems, history and future development issues that need to be addressed. Hardyplants (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move: It seems the standard term is "Hydrocarbon-producing plant" (from Melburnian's reference above, and the reference in the article). The concept seems distinct enough that it doesn't really belong just in Euphorbia, or Asclepias, or latex. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving any content to biofuels or alternative fuels? If the topic develops enough a break-out page can be made, but at the moment I can't see more than a paragraph or two plus maybe a list of potential species. There is also a

Energy crop article. Hardyplants (talk) 12:24, 23 ::August 2010 (UTC)

Puttting it in energy crop would require rewriting that article' entire introduction and reorienting in a way that the term "energy crop" is not usually ujse. I don't know a lot about it, though, and it seems hydrocarbon produucing plants deserve a mention. These plants are unique because of why they are used, namely exploitation of their terpenoid pathways, research engaged in heavily by Calciv, the king of plant pathways. Whatever the name, it can stand alone, but would require an off-topic section in most other articles, by the way, you can also get fuel by exploiting the terpenoid pathway's products to create gasoline. I'll write this article, but I won't add it to another, because it would require an entire other level of research to put it into context, whereas this is an interesting, discrete topic, coupled with a very famous scientist, one of the most famous inm the world. That's all I have to say, as I would have rather spent thhis time writing an article. JaRoad (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having stubs isn't a problem. A look down the biofuels page reveals plenty of specific methods with their own articles. In fact, this might have enough overlap with one of those, such as Green diesel or Vegetable oil refining, to be merged. (The whole area is a bit of a thicket: I think there's some duplication between trade names (e.g. Green crude) and generic terms.) If not, I think it should have its own article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Biogasoline is another potentially similar topic. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:37, 24 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 keep. no arguments for deletion except the nom - on the coverage of the subject JForget 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Rao

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

Doesn't seem notable--can't find any press coverage. Prezbo (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John Rao is a fairly important player in the traditionalist Catholic Movement who as well as publishing a large number of pieces in Catholic newspapers and magazines such as the Remnant, the Latin Magazine, the Seattle Catholic, the Wanderer, the Social Justice review and a number of Italian and German magazines. Outside this circle he's also attracted attention (apart from the slight Czech argument with Cardinal Vlk, for example on lifesute and with PBS. JASpencer (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems inappropriate to have an article on him when he's received very little coverage by reliable sources. The PBS interview isn't related to his career and doesn't really speak to his notability.Prezbo (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - PBS were not interviewing him as a random pilgrim, but as a spokesman for the pilgrims. Among the indult Catholics he is very important, particularly in the States. JASpencer (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Slightly difficult beacuse there aren't many 'traditional' secondary sources, but there are hundreds of slightly 'non-traditional' sources - try Googling "John Rao Catholic", and it becomes apparent that he's a big cheese in the traditional catholic sphere. Chris (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from his speech, for what is he noted? I googled him and got nothing. What is his personal philosophy?--Lyricmac (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I see after googling 'John Rao Catholic'.--Lyricmac (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely published leading Catholic conservative public intellectual. Fresh interview with him here. Fairly massive list of publications. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 9 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Claro

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

Appears to fail the biographies guidelines. Being a CEO or a committee member is not of itself notable. The sources available either mention Claro tangentially or only re-state his appointments or position rather than establishing his impact on the historical record. He is most often quoted when speaking on behalf on the SIEDC, making the articles about SIEDC rather than himself. Fæ (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Executive director of a redevelopment agency like tens of thousands of other redevelopment agencies. He "manages a staff of twelve, an operating budget of $1.7 million" - most small businesses are bigger than that. News hits are trivial or extremely local. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BASIC. Although there is one reliable source, the depth of the coverage is not substantial. "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," according to WP:BASIC. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable spam piece. Blatant promotion. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of significant coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completly fails WP:BIO. Maybe in 10-20 years time, but not now. scope_creep (talk) 22:50, 15 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 delete. JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzone Album 2011

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

Unreferenced speculation. Delete per WP:HAMMER. I42 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. — C M B J 11:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TenPoundHammer's Law can be applied too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: Another crystal ball to be smashed by the WP:HAMMER. Verified information about the artist's next album should remain at the artist's article until the title, track listing and release date have all been confirmed. According to this, they're "probably going to get in the studio to make another album next year" as of last month. Cliff smith ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a well-known essay (there's nothing here or available that justifies an article). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons, and this editor will just create a new one when this one is deleted. Mister sparky (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:HAMMER. Haven't cited that in a while. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the name Boyzone, oh and WP:HAMMER - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER.Autarch (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all above Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stop, Hammer time and per Crystal. Mo ainm~Talk 22:25, 11 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First tuesday

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

Fails our notability requirements in general and the corporation specific one in particular. Although the article appears to be sourced, this is misleading because the sources from what I can see are either the company's website or do not mention the subject at all. Reyk _YO! 07:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam. Commercial provider of courses in real estate. Not a degree-granting institution. No coverage to demonstrate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable spam piece. Fails WP:ORG. All 11 sources are fairly useless. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright advert spam. WP:ORG not met despite the link spam that is basically all self-referenced or similar dubious stuff. Ryan Norton 08:21, 16 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 delete. JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kimel

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

Speedy tag removed. This is all just puff for the Presimetrics book, listed below. Chris (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scholar does throw up that one reference to his work in a paper by James K. Galbraith et al: The Fed’s Real Reaction Function. But is that enough to establish Notability? AllyD (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. With one not-yet-published book, certainly does not meet WP:AUTHOR. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ultra-lite content which does not demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion, not notable. Plus COI and all that. Superp (talk) 21:19, 11 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 delete. JForget 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presimetrics

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

Speedy tag for copyvio removed, but this is just an advert for the book slightly rephrased from their website. Chris (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unwikified page for a book not yet published (Amazon says Aug 18th) so no basis for notability yet. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books; and just being published will not be enough - it needs to make enough impact to satisfy WP:Notability (books)#Criteria. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion with no basis for notability. Superp (talk) 21:16, 11 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 delete. JForget 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lansden

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Winner of a minor pageant and contributor to a charitable cause, all references are from sources close to the subject. No citations in major independent sources. The creation of this article by the subject casts further doubt over notability: self-promotion and conflict of interest. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person with no reliable sources for a BLP. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If only we could find reliable objective sources for this, we would have a rationale to keep the image. JNW (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above. The image, while impressive for a 39-year-old, is on Wikimedia Commons and subject to speedy deletion there, as it is a reduced copy of http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/127/l_7bc2b404423a48a5944fa7aaf20f7527.jpg and its thumbnail http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/127/m_7bc2b404423a48a5944fa7aaf20f7527.jpg as displayed by http://www.myspace.com/lisalansden/photos/54181343 and http://www.myspace.com/lisalansden and also http://www.americandreampageants.com/sitebuilder/images/lisa-22-240x329.jpg as displayed by http://www.americandreampageants.com/Mrs_AD.html. Also, procedurally, this is a multiply-contested BLP PROD, and I suspect the two major contributors Lisa Lansden (talk · contribs) and Tommybrooksii (talk · contribs) of being WP:SPAs and possibly being master & puppet. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 06:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image uploader on Commons is Tbrooks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and claimed to be named "[[User:Tbrooks|Lisa Lansden]]" in this initial edit, further reinforcing my suspicion of one person controlling two accounts here and one on Wikimedia Commons. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 08:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't even have an article on the beauty pageant she won, besides the fact that she fails GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Mrs. American Dream" isn't an achievement that gets her over the bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 9 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia)

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

Non-notable and unreferenced county highway; an infobox and termini do not notability make for county routes. I'd merge it, but there's nowhere to merge it to. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, checked Google news/books/scholar for other mentions, the only mentions from news are where it's mentioned in passing about a traffic accident and as part of an award of contracts for bridges from 2006. No mentions on scholar, and the one mention on books appears to be from a book culled from Wikipedia. I also note the content has remained unchanged since it's creation, the only changes since 2007 to the article are infobox and category tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major transportation corridor and extension of Pennsylvania Route 857. This route is one of the few county routes in the state considered by WVDOH to be essentially equivalent to a state route. It is fully marked with stand-alone guide signage including multiplexes with WV 7 and US 119. One of a handful of county routes of major significance in the state that WVDOH has included in its listing of control cities. Brian Powell (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a subsection of PA 857, complete with {{infobox road small}}. Imzadi 1979 → 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a rare exception of a county route serving as a significant transportation corridor. Failing keep, the article should be merged with its continuation, Pennsylvania Route 857. Dough 48 72 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither this article nor PA 857 assert this corridor is significant. If it were significant, it would be a state highway. –Fredddie ™ 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fredddie. If I recall correctly, I only created the article in order to remove content relating to it from PA 857. Since that time, though, it's become commonplace to cover short continuations of a highway in another state in the first road's article. It could be merged back to PA 857; however, I don't see a need to have more than a one-line mention about CR 857 in PA 857's article if that happens. A statement saying that CR 857 serves as a connector between the state line and Morgantown is plenty enough. – T M F 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: CR 857 is the road that is being functionally replaced by the West Virginia Route 43 freeway, part of the Mon-Fayette Expressway. Brian Powell (talk) 04:57, 9 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 deleted (CSD G5) by Kww. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Mouf A.K.A. Khia Shamone

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

Disputed prod. Per WP:MUSIC, future albums are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No for Compulsory Military Service" Movement

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

Declined A7 nominee. Fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any organization which exists strictly on Facebook (which is what the article itself claims) cannot, by definition, be notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither established nor evident, Facebook group. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Epic failure of WP:N. I think we could probably WP:SNOW this one. Pmedema (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article about the creator might fly, an article about this Facebook group does not. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 9 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away Slow (album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure CRYSTAL really applies here. There are already a couple of reviews around (contactmusic, musicOMH) - we can debate whether these are reliable sources, but the album will be out next month. It might be worth incubating this one for a few weeks - the album's on a major label and Page has already had plenty of press so the chances of it not getting reviewed in sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable seem very slim.--Michig (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aricle fails notability criteria for albums. I think WP:CRYSTAL can be aplied too, because the release date of the album is "13 September 2010". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:22, 9 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 delete. WP:CSD#G4 by Kww (talk · contribs) JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elecktric Blue

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

Unreleased album, does not meet general notability of specific (WP:SONG). Was prodded; removed w/o discussion; so AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not good at closing AFDs, so I'll let someone else do that part. I speedied the article as a G4.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 8 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Choke

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

While a real slang term, this orphaned article has no sources and doesn't demonstrate the subject's importance. News archive search returns nothing useful: [19] — east718 | talk | 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to be original research at the moment. It might be possible to piece together an article by citing UFC commentary etc. I'd like to give the article a chance to develop. By the way, it should be Rape choke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged since April 2008 as lacking notability and sources. At best this might be a candidate for the wiktionary. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Neologism. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the 2 previous comments. Astudent0 (talk) 18:30, 9 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Andelman

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

No non-trivial sources. Only hits on Gnews are "Philip Andelman directed the video for x" and other similar one-sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for creative professionals. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As his work is verifiable, and apart from the award given him at the age of nine by the Mayor of Paris, have any of the videos he's directed or produced won awards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:02, 9 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 Snowball Keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger (dog)

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

I don't see any reason why this particular dog is notable on his own. While some individual dogs (including Fala, Seaman, Balto, and Barry) can be notable on their own if they have had enough of an impact on history, I don't think this one is notable enough to have his own article. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, there is at least one other, possibly more notable dog with the same name (as another user pointed out on the article's talk page). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was important enough to be portrayed in a feature film, and his name was connected to the raid, which is part of WW2 folklore. The offensiveness of his name in modern times is not a reason to delete the article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The dog's portrayal in film may not be sufficient to warrant an independent article, but the military and censorship aspects add a dimension of encyclopedic interest. — C M B J 08:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say that due to the fame of the dog and the controversy about the name, the page should be kept. BenderRobot (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really quite famous, for a dog. Chris (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But maybe the title should be edited to "nigga" so as to be less offensive. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the dog's name. If we change the name to be less offensive, then we're rewriting history. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but give some weighting in the lead paragraph to the subsequent controversy in the film portrayals. The dog's notability as a mascot is debatable, but the subsequent controversy over whether you can use the name in a film is clearly covered in numerous third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I definitely don't like the name, but the article is well-sourced and I am fully aware of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An interesting article. I personally don't think we should be putting up articles under pet names, but it seems to be well established by precedent. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: presence in feature film, presence in codename for the Dambusters raid, subsequent controversy of the use of the name in the contemporary remake, all combine to make this a notable subject.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:53, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 12,000 Years

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

References are to Bibliographic books that do nothing other than assert existence--no indication this book is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:NB. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment im not really sure how notable this author is in relation to the early years of sf publishing, but this link says he is important, as is the novel. Google books has 367 mentions of "after 12000 years" + coblentz. personally, im undecided, but i lean towards inclusion of older less notable (poorly documented) books, which may be a bias on my part.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mercurywoodrose's link to a work that "says [the novel] is important" is to Coblentz's autobiography; it's probably not surprising that he himself thought it important. In addition, the Google Books search suggested by MWR actually garners only 74 hits, among which I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage (the relevant page of Ashley's The Gernsback Days is not included in the preview I get, so I'm going by the search-result snippet). In the absence of evidence that the book meets any of the criteria of WP:BK, "delete" is the only recommendation I can make, but I'm willing to consider any other evidence that may be offered. Deor (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, i just got an "f" in bibliographic research. i stand corrected, i obviously didn't read deeper into my links. ill do better next time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the references already cited, 333 by Crawford et al contains descriptions of novels which are "generally considered the best efforts in Science-Fantasy up to and including 1950" which would indicate some notability. Lloyd Eshbach in his book Over My Shoulder lists it as one of the stronger titles issued by FPCI. ISFDB has references to three reviews, two of which are signed. While I don't have access to these reviews, their existence as well as the the inclusion in 333 would satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BK. I will add the Eshbach quote and cite the reviews in the article. --Rtrace (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak Keep if WP:BK trumps WP:GNG: Given the two additional citations, I can see an argument for keeping this under WP:BK. I still don't believe those reviews clearly enough indicate notability per WP:GNG, but it's closer to being verifiably notable than before...Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It trumps. Not even us Wikipedians have been dumb enough to think that we could create a single, workable standard for every subject on the planet. General notability and its subject-specific kids are an either-or thing: a subject can stick around if there's at least modicum of evidence that it's good to have as a part of our coverage of its field, or that it's good to have, period. We could never get asteroids, programming techniques, obscure Eastern European delicacies and webcomics into the same encyclopedia otherwise. (On a related note, if anyone claims that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, go over there and slap him with a fish.) --Kiz o r 18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Guidelines are just guidelines, not interlocking sets of universal rules regarding inclusion or disinclusion. Just ask youself: "Does this topiic and article belong in an encyclopedia? Is it accurate? Is it verifiable? Is it presented neutrally or correctable to a neutral presentation?" Carrite (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the author. Unfortunately, I cannot find any reviews, other the the unsubstantial ones already listed. Cobletz is important, but not nearly so important that every book of his can be assumed to be notable. I'm not sure how to take the comments cited, but I think merge would be the default. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one additional reference and added it to the article (Barron's Anatomy of Wonder 4). I am curious as to why the coverage in 333, the Chalker/Owings book, the Eshbach book and the Tuck encyclopedia is considered unsubstantial. As I read WP:GNG and WP:NB these works satisfy the required criteria. While I don't have access to the magazine reviews or the Bleiler mention (they were found through tertiary source, ISFDB), I would presume both the Pohl and Conklin reviews as well as Bleiler to be substantive absent evidence to the contrary. All three are well known editors. What threshold do these articles need to meet beyond what is mentioned in the two notability policies? --Rtrace (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough by sources.Wolfview (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several stub articles on this author's books. It might be a good thing if all were merged together with his article.Wolfview (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - ABEBooks shows 32 copies on the used market, with a top-end price of $400, which indicates to me substantial interest in the title. I personally don't think that it's a good idea to start a page for every significant book in the world, but that's probably a minority opinion. I don't see a pressing need to boot this one... Carrite (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been reissued by Garland (a very serious publisher) and is showing in 181 libraries on WorldCat, which is a fairly massive number. So I'll strike the "Weak"... Carrite (talk)

Strong Keep - Being an inclusionist, I don't see any point in removing this article which has strong sources and was written during the golden age of science fiction. The whole point of wikipedia is to create and link information. Lets hope the author goes on to create all the other articles for the books that Stanton A. Coblentz wrote. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 15 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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherri Hill

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

The only reliable sources independent of the subject I could locate were either trivial mentions or from blacklisted webpages (Fibre2fashion.com). Unable to find enough to establish notability. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for three years. J04n(talk page) 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate notability. Markiewp (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of Google News Archive returns several very minor mentions (such as "wearing a Sherri Hill-designed gown"); Google Scholar/Books returns nothing useful. I do not see that Hill (talented though she may be) meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources do not make WP:N Jeepday (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very notable in pageant circles (is an official designer/sponsor of Miss Universe Org) but can't find enough sources to support notability here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:14, 12 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangway (disambiguation)

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

There's only one article called "Gangway". The only other legit entry is a redlink. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How will a user get to walkway from the article Gangway? Replace the tophat note with a multiple see also to aisle and walkway? -84user (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some history: this version was what Gangway looked like in 2008-01-03T18:30:47; the topnote was removed at 2008-12-06T07:17:36; I then thought to save the note in a disambig here and here. -84user (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a dab page is intended to list articles with the same name, not the same meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambiguation as most are broad definitions that don't even contain the word 'gangway' in the respective articles. There is one exception I noticed with tramway being referred to as a gangway. As a result I would just delete the dab and create a hatnote from the band linking it to tramway. Tavix | Talk 21:41, 11 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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Fusco

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for three years. J04n(talk page) 01:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability and this ha existed long enough without references or anything to indicate notability. Markiewp (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence of this person's notability as Wikipedia defines it. I can find stories about a German nurse of this name, and about a writer who is about 10 years younger than this person - but nothing about this individual at Googles News/Archive; Scholar; Books -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 12 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 redirect to The Incredibles. "It became the first animated Hindi movie to be exhibited in Indian cinemas" is unsubstantiated by reliable sources, and as it turns out from Sodabottle's research, it requires some weaseling to be true. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Hain Lajawab

Hum Hain Lajawab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

As per WP:NOTFILM. It is simply the Hindi dubbed version of "The Incredibles", with no differences from the original. - Reanimated X (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reanimated X's motion. Mention of Shahrukh Khan's involvement in this version as the voice of Mr. Incredible is likely worth noting in the film's root article. Additionally, if there was something notable about this version's performance (ie. high box office gross, controversy, etc), it might also deserve mention there.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For some reason, the AFD tag was not inserted onto the article, but even then there wasn't enough consensus to close the discussion so a relist was required anyways. JForget 01:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not separately notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Says it's the "first animated Hindi movie to be exhibited in Indian cinemas", which is some claim to notability. This source also says "Doing voice over for animated characters is very common in Hollywood but this is the first time in the history of Bollywood that top stars are following the set trend." Also appears to have some level of distribution. Has also had some coverage and reviews. Even though dubbing an existing film is no real achievement in itself, I think it meets WP:NFILM. Accordingly, tagging for rescue. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not an "animated Hindi movie". It's a Pixar film dubbed in Hindi. So what? How many translated versions of the same barely notable film exist worldwide? I am not confident about redirecting: this is not the first Indian film named Hum Hain Lajawab (search youtube). East of Borschov 12:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Incredibals There is no reason to see it or trat it as a differnt film.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Incredibles and add a mention there if necessary. There is no reason to have a separate article on an overdubbed version of a movie. If there is no consensus to redirect, then delete. SnottyWong ^chatter 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "it became the first animated Hindi movie to be exhibited in Indian cinemas". Sounds notable to me. Listing all the famous Bollywood actors used for voice acting, is important as well. Best as a separate article. Dream Focus 17:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Notable content that shouldn't be lost. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect. Frankly, I found it was an interesting read. Hindi is a major language spoken by more people than there are in the USA, so that the movie is the first animated one ever for the language is really Incredible ;) —CodeHydro 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. The article has enough errors and copyright violations that it shouldn't be considered for a merge, but it may be appropriate for a redirect to The Incredibles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to incredibles. It generated some buzz because it was the one of the first animated/dubbed film to be voiced by major bollywood actors. This makes for a two line mention (or at the most a subheader) in the original film's article. No need for a separate article.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 17 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis (band)

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

This article, while well-written, has been tagged for notability since April 2010. The references are all the band's/members' own web pages, MySpace, YouTube, a forum, and a link to a newspaper website (but not to any particular article). A Google search does not result in any reliable sources that would establish notability per WP:BAND. The band might be well-known in the Lafayette area, but I'm not seeing any indication that they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources among the sources, no real assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Of 9 sources, not one passes for reliable. A search did not find anything. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:50, 15 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tessaleno Devezas

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

Article needs major cleanup, and the author apparently has a COI. AFD isn't cleanup, but I'm also unsure as to whether the subject is notable, so I thought to bring it here first to get some other opinions before embarking a cleanup project. Subject is an Associate Professor who has won some awards, a good list of publications, but after a quick search, I think he fails to meet WP:PROF. What do you all think? Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak delete. Awards don't appear to be major ones. The Web of Science lists 21 articles, that have been cited 172 times for an h-index of 6. His most-cited paper dates back to 1978 (before he obtained his PhD) and has 88 citations, accounting for over half of the total. The articles on which this article bases his notability have the following counts: 21, 12, 12, 9, 6, and less. Running a "cited references" search (which also covers citations to books and book chapters) does not reveal anything cited more than 1 or 2 times. In view of the fact that he started publishing in the 1970s, these citation data do not indicate any special impact on his field. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep: Sufficiently notable work to justify keeping. Perhaps needs rewriting but is perhaps written to show notability in a vain attempt to avoid AfD. Notability seems to me not only in general but for us who use him in a wide range of articles (Search for Tessaleno Devezas on Wikipedia). But I don't know how/if we count this - (a WP-use score of 11 perhaps). (This could have been done deliberately - but a quick look does not seem to make this likely) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Portuguese books seem to have reviews in the national press and the national radio interview seem enough for general notability (Msrasnw (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

EG Modelo económico ocidental vai perder hegemonia mundial - dn - DN Diário de Notícias - Lisboa - [20] Nov 23, 2007 (Msrasnw (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I don't think I've seen the argument "we use him in WP" before. In any case, user-contributed sites such as WP are not reliable sources. What doe you mean with "Sufficiently notable work"? His work has been cited 172 times in a timespan of 30-40 years, with only 6 articles having 6 citations or more. That's something like 6 citations per year, I know postdocs who have that much per week. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to Crusio to clarify my confused contribution: By sufficiently notable - I mean he seems to have published work that has made an impact (and seem to me, with an admittedly subjective judgment worthy of including in our encylopedia). His books have been subject to review in journals and his articles have caused debate - in Technological Forecasting & Social Change (A jounral which I have sometimes read) he has articles and then articles commenting on them. (But he is an editor of it). The fact that we use him as source in some of articles although not sufficient just seems to add weight to us having an aricle on him. (Also I liked the finding via this search of wikipedia of Nataša Kejžar - this is what make wikipedia interesting!). His awards and mentions:

* “Elsevier 2001 Prize for the Outstanding Paper”, awarded in February 2002 for the paper “The Biological Determinants of Long Wave Behavior in Socioeconomic Growth and Development” published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, volume 68, Number 1, pp. 1-58, September 2001.

* Awarded with an N.D. Kondratieff Medal 2004 by the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and the International Kondratieff Foundation (decided on 24 May 2004, conferral ceremony on 20 October 2004, at the 5th Kondratieff Conference, Saint Petersburg, Russia).

* Awarded with the status of Honorary Member of the International Kondratieff Foundation, certificate conferred in February 18, 2005, at the closing ceremony of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on “Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security”.

* Honorable Mention by Elsevier Inc. to the paper “The Growth Dynamics of the Internet and Long Wave Theory” published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, volume 72, Number 8, pp. 913-935, October 2005 (this award is published in TF&SC 73(3), March 2006

Also would seem sufficient to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Are you arguing that the awards are highly prestigious and at an national or international level? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, they are not. As for his books having been the subject of reviews, that may be something else, can you provide references? The journal editorship you mention might qualify under WP:PROF, but our article (and the journal website) mention Harold A. Linstone as editor and Devezas is only a member of the editorial board. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of refs to book reviews. (But not this one on his elephant book: http://www.centroatlantico.pt/titulos/desafios/salomao/imagens/jornalnoticias-18nov2008-salomao.jpg) No I am not claiming the awards are highly prestigious just as indicators of his impact. He was the main subject of a 50 minute interview on Portugal's leading radio station (RDP Antena 1). Would this help - if so how should it be added? I think adding it would help defend the article but would seem to make the article worse. Already I think the article is problematic by an over-stress on establishing notability rather than just telling us a little about him and his work.(Msrasnw (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The radio show: Prof. Tessaleno Devezas em entrevista na Antena 1 Sábado pelas 10h, no programa "1001 Escolhas". Sábado pelas 10h, vai para o ar na rádio Antena 1, no programa "1001 Escolhas" uma entrevista longa ( 50 min) com o Prof. Tessaleno Devezas, docente e investigador do Departamento de Engenharia Electromecânica à mais de 18 anos. Should we add the elephant review reference ? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, so it appears that the awards do not help this reach WP:PROF. Certainly a radio show can be cited, see the cite episode template at Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It may be that the subject qualifies under general notability guidelines using such references. As for the quality of the article, AFD isn't cleanup, so if notability can be established, we can clean it up later--for example, the essay section on theory would have to go, I think, but that's all a job for laterman. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is some confusion/misunderstanding in all this discussion. It is important to observe that the professional career of T Devezas embraces three areas of work: physics (solid state), materials science and systems theory/tech forecasting/future studies (henceforth ST/TF/FS). The first and second were started in the 1970’s/1980’s, and the last one started only after 1997, corresponding to the most recent scientific activity of Devezas, which intensified after 2001. This article is composed to show T Devezas’s growing contribution in this last area and it is worth observing the many works (articles, books) published since then (in the present decade), that have deserved a few awards and mentions.

I would also like to mention that some of the arguments above are not correct when it comes to the counting of publications since 1978 as posted by Crusio. Much less Crusio’s statement that “In view of the fact that he started publishing in the 1970s, these citation data do not indicate any special impact on his field”. The usage of “his field” is wrong – keep in mind that “his field” is manifold. I think Crusio has not perceived that there are 3 scientific fields involved and that the Wiki’s article refers to only one area (SS/TF/FS).

The correct counting we find at ISI Web are 31 articles, with 196 citations. Among these articles we find ca. 20 articles published since 1997 on SS/TF/FS, but mainly only after 2001. Consider also that an article published in 2001 with 21 citations, other published in 2002 with 9 citations, other in 2003 with 14, two other in 2005 with 12 citations each, etc…, all in the same subject/area is a good mark. Scientific impact takes time.

I will work further in editing this article, adding some more references about prizes, citations, etc.. The section on Quotations will be removed and perhaps moved to Wikiquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDvzs (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even taking into account that Devezas switched fields, 192 citations is really not very significant. When I referred to the length of time, I meant to say that the longer an article is around, the more citations it garners. The citation data cited by JDvzs abvoe here do not indicate a level of impact satisfying WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JDvzs, you appear to only have an interest in this article and a couple of related ones--I don't mean to pry, but I wonder if you have a conflict of interest. Also, please take a look at WP:N for guidelines and policies governing what counts in try to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have started a little page on the International N. D. Kondratiev Foundation and it and its prize look as though they may a bit more notable than I thought (Msrasnw (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability seem further supported by the fact that some of his work having sparked whole or comment articles written specifically about it:

Discussion of Devezas et al. article - Unconvinced about a 5th K-wave: A response to Devezas et al. Author(s): Ayres, RU Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 72 Issue: 8 Pages: 936-937 Published: OCT 2005
Comments on the Devezas-Corredine paper Author(s): Duncan, JF Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 59-62 Published: SEP 2001
What causes K-waves? Author(s): Modelski, G Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 75-80 Published: SEP 2001 Abstract This commentary on the Devezas-Corredine paper raises three questions: how do we think and how do we need to think about K-waves, what causes K-waves in the Devezas-Corredine model, and in what sense do social and biological factors add to a better understanding of large-scale structural changes in the world economy. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

CommentA letter to the editor or small commentary papers about an article that he published do not seem to be anything out of the ordinary. --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be well published. An economist working in long-wave theory, I take it; winning a Kondratiev prize would indicate significant work in the field. The entire section of quotations needs to be blanked, assuming the article is kept. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have some doubts about the Kondratieff prize and even if the gold medal would turn out to be a notable award, I don't think that the second-place silver medal would satisfy WP:PROF. The fact that Devezas is "well published" is trivial: publishing is what academics do. His production is not exceptional and most articles appear to have gone unnoticed with minimal citations to them. --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Each thing alone might not (or might) be suffcient to pass WP:prof but all together - also with the book reviews - some in Portuguese national press [21] and subject of an interview on Portugal's leading radio station would seem to invovlve a mix general - via authorship of noted books - and academic notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I don't think that multiple non-notable things together add up to notability. The one book review is not bad, but that is not enough. Are there any WP:RS about the radio interview? If it has been added to the article or given above, I have overlooked it. --Crusio (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Crusio A source for the Radio show is : University of Beira Interior's website - here: http://www.ubi.pt/Noticia.aspx?id=182. This seems to me OK since it is the University's site - and so might be an aceptable source - the Antenna 1 site does not seem to have an easily searchable archive. But I don't think it would be useful to add to the article which already reads to much like a promotional article. Looking for Portuguese books reviews one can find the following refered to:

1509 - A Batalha que Mudou o Domínio do Comércio Global was reviewed in Expresso, 10th January 2009 -
Salomão − O Elefante Diplomata was reviewed in in Expresso, 22 November 2008
Portugal − O Pioneiro da Globalização Expresso, was reviewed in 30 June 2007 - Expresso, 30 de Junho de 2007.

Our page on this paper is here Expresso (Portuguese newspaper) and this seems a reasonable source. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

PS I think I am of the view that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources and that multiple things added together help show his significance anywya I guess we disagree on this but best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment I do not have a COI, altough I may be quite relative to Devezas, when I started this article I did it with the intention to base my decisions on objective criteria. And from my point of view so it has been, since in my opinion Tessaleno has indeed some academic notability and much of it can be found on arguments layed in this very much discussion. Having explained my impartiality, I would not have this article deleted.

P.S.: Note that there even more references regarding his books other than the ones Msrasnw posted above, which I will later post to this discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JDvzs (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, JDvzs, are you saying that you are related to the subject of the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDvzs (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might like to look at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JDvzs, yes, it would, and if you are a relative, better to acknowledge it, so at least everyone knows what the possible conflict of interest is. It is difficult for most people to edit articles on subject to which they have a close relationship, but not impossible. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 12 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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 13:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahane Israel (Chabad)

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

no indication of notability. References given do not mention the organisation under the name given. Machne Israel is mentioned but still does not indicate why it is notable - only that it exists. noq (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided don't specifically discuss the organization. Truthsort (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correct me if im wrong but although some of the sources do not reference specifically this organisation they clearly state that this is one of the 3 main organisations of the worldwide chabad-lubavitch movement Mkonikov

Well, how can they clearly state that without referring to the organisation? noq (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 00:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone with the faintest knowledge of Chabad knows that this organisation is highly notable. The article needs to be expanded, no doubt, but that doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about zealous nominating for AFD--on the same day that the article was created, today, it is being nominated for deletion! Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are routinely nominated for deletion on the day they are created. The article needs to show notability - not rely on people having knowledge of Chabad. noq (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote:

From COL: Machne Israel Development Fund was established by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of blessed memory, in 1984, as a funding organization for sustaining the growth and expansion of Chabad-Lubavitch activities worldwide.

From Ask Moses: In addition to the establishment of the Lubavitch Yeshivos Tomchei Tmimim in the U.S.A. and Canada, the Rebbe founded Machne Israel, Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Beth Rivkah and Beth Sarah schools for Jewish girls, and the Kehot Publication Society, dedicated to the issue of books in the true spirit of Torah and tradition.

From New York Times: His father-in-law, who had arrived in the United States a year earlier, appointed him to head several Lubavitch organizations, including Merkos L'inyonei Chinuch, the group's educational arm, and Machne Israel, a social service organization.

Mkonikov (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAHANE Israel is not mentioned - is Machne Israel the correct name? That does make them mentioned in the articles but I still don't see anything in the article itself that distinguishes this organisation from any of the tens of thousands of charities in the world that could state similar aims. noq (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being that it's after all just a transliteration from the hebrew name מחנה ישראל it can and will end up being spelled in multiple different ways (Machne Yisrael, Machne Israel, Machane Israel etc.)

What distinguishes it from other charities is the fact that it is the foundation of the worldwide chabad movement here in the US ever since it's founding in 1950sMkonikov (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Machne Israel is the standard spelling that the organization uses (e.g. here). I've fixed it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be distinguished from all other jewish social organizations? see Category:Jewish communal organizations. Larryyr (talk) 20:32, 9 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 delete. euh... the delete arguments outweights the no delete ones by a long shot JForget 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasra Tamjidi

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

CSD declined. Fails WP:ENT. Here is a Google search in Persian.Farhikht (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references cited, if they even mention him, mention him only in passing as a minor character. The movies and TV shows in which he appeared in, which he probably didn't even star in, are not notable also. --Slon02 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & also agree with Slon02. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO Delete why i saw movie that he was in it,he is persian actor but he didn'y act in any other movie after he got grown up so i don'y see any point to delete this because he was on movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.75 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO DeleteIn iran the internet access is to little,i think one of the reson that this page didn't get clean is that,and i did find this on youtube might be help www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FszhnCVdnk
Here on http://www.kasrafilm.com/ you can find his name as Cast in Endless Night 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.75 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment , plz read WP:RS to realize reliable sources, self published sources are not acceptable in wikipedia. and there are thousands of good articles about Iranians in here without an excuse for low internet access. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,what you say its true but still is he is not big celebrity like some of the persian actor and actress to have fancy and big sources.And i say it agian in iran internet access its to low and the fans won't put there time for some one like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.215.32 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO Delete,because IT'S NOT FARE ,he did act in the movie and if we delete this its F U to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.215.32 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 12:23, 11 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ettehad

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

Article is largely promotional in nature. Fails WP:AUTHOR. The article gives no reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Farhikht (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to back up the claims in the article. Tandis magazine does not list him. The Binab Art Quarterly magazine has one Ali Etemad which could be a typo on their behalf but, all in all, the article can't be verified to a notable extend. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 8 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Bloch

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

A "rising artist" with only a link to Facebook and no other references sourced, with none found. This is not a notable person. — Timneu22 · talk 13:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No English language evidence of notability. --Bhickey (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After further searching, this person appears to fail not only WP:ARTIST, but also WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. --Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Notability in Pakistan might be notable enough for en.Wikipedia if someone could translate these Urdo sources and find if anything is in detail or depth about this individual. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no reliable sources that shows notability. I also searched her name on Google and found no reliable sources. --Ha dg er 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:30, 9 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 delete. SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) speedy deleted the article per G3 on 06:56, 8 August 2010. (Non-adimin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alantia Coupet

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

[22]. The "source" that was added to thwart the BLP prod appears to be a random link with no mention of the subject. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Google searches for the artist, her albums, and her record label only get the Wikipedia article and mirrors. I tagged the article as an unsourced BLP, but I now suspect it is a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 8 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coey Turipa

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

Was tagged as Unref-BLP, but now a reference has been added. Still an article of non-notable footballer. Fails notability criteria for footballers per NSPORTS as amateur and only age group international. Coverage is general sports journalism of general nature of type expected for general local sports persons. ClubOranje^T 09:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails the General Notability Guideline. As an aside, while the article meets the letter of the BLP sourcing requirements, a link to a stat page does not, in my opinion, meet the spirit. --W F C-- 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from delete to weak delete to reflect the fact that work has been done, i.e. adding and sourcing the fact that he has played for New Zealand at youth level. Staying in delete because that alone doesn't confer notability, and the sourcing is still just a bunch of stats. --W F C-- 20:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree to a degree, but there is no requirement for a reference to prove notability, only verifiability.--ClubOranje^T 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 8 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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than a Bomb

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

Article relates to a documentary film that is not on general release and is being shown at two venues as a precursor to a possible nomination for an Academy Award. At present, the film does not meet the notability requirement for films (though it may do so in the future). Article's author contested PROD but has not supplied reliable references establishing notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of comments and then I'll let the process continue as it may:

In my view on "notability," a film that has a theatrical release at one of the top US art houses is notable. Period. There should be a Wikipedia article for every film meeting this criteria. The fact that a film doesn't have a "general release" has no relevance to the importance of a film. The fact that a major art house theater (two in this case) opens a film for at least a week is notable. I'd taken the time to include references to the pages (IFC Center/NY and Arclight Hollywood/LA) covering the movie in question to show the film opened at these venues.
In addition I'd noted that this film is part of the DocuWeeks selection of 17 films chosen specifically because they were deemed worthy of Academy consideration for the documentary category. I'd included a link to the DocuWeeks page.
This is probably not the appropriate place to make this comment and it will likely be deleted, but I think it needs to be made. This is exactly the reason I'd stopped doing any work on Wikipedia around six months ago. I don't have time for this and don't need the aggravation. It's clear to me that doing any real work on Wikipedia is truly a waste of my time. I'll continue to make an edit here and there, and possibly create another article or two over time, but it's just not worth the effort to do anything substantial. As others have noted (reference the Wikipedia losing volunteers article on CNET), this is a major weakness of Wikipedia. Obviously the deletion process is important...it's a question of when to mark an article for deletion. Was this really necessary? John Dhabolt (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official selection at at least 3 film festivals. Audience choice for best Film at the The Cleveland International Film Festival. Sufficient coverage: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. There may not be in-depth coverage yet, but there's enough for a properly-referenced article and I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this be disambiguated from the Public Enemy song of the same name off It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible, and easy enough to do.[29][30] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 8 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 delete. JForget 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PORTMEDIA

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

This article was proposed for deletion, but a reviewing administrator declined to delete it because an anonymous user, not removing the proposed deletion tag, wrote on the talk page a comment objecteing to the deletion, and signed it "--anon". This article actually seems to be a fraud. The article interchangably refers to its subject by the name of the claimed product and by the name of the claimed company. It includes a dozen links. Several of the links are to blogs, and following the links brings the reader to the blog's site, but to a page indicating the article is not found. Given the number of links exhibiting this, I have to conclude the links were likely fabricated. The other links are to a search terms ranker and a few articles about other products and companies in this area, but making no reference to this company or product, even though the links lead the reader to believe they will refer to the subject of the article. Many of these links are listed in the references section. In actuality, I could not identify any press about this company or its product. The company's web site, linked from the article, appears to be entirely in a foreign language. Being unable to effectively translate it, I can derive no insight from it. At the least, the subject is not notable. It the most, it is invented. Bsherr (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any reliable sources covering this, there is a portmedia project on sourceforge, but this article bears no resemblance to that project. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant sources, not notable. Dewritech (talk) 19:19, 14 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 Incubate. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Carlo Guicciardi

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

Contested prod. Luthier with no real evidence of notability. Google News returns two trivial sources and nothing for the alternate spelling "Giancarlo Guicciardi."

Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This individual is not notable enough. In both articles he is only mentioned in passing. --Angelikfire (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion The Bologna Luthier School is arguably the most important Luthier School in '900. Gian Carlo Guicciardi is among the most representative of this school, having been a pupil of the great Ansaldo Poggi. Many luthiers of the new generation make reference in their website to Giancarlo Guicciardi as a revered master (http://www.liuteria-parmense.com/ita/storia_900.htm, http://www.dallaquercia.it/, http://www.marcominnozzi.com/guicciardi_it.html, http://www.gianni-norcia-liutaio.it/GianniNorciaLiutaio.html, http://ricerca.gelocal.it/mattinopadova/archivio/mattinodipadova/2009/07/19/MB1PO_MB101.html, http://www.liuteriatoscana.org/eng/abe.htm, http://www.suonare.it/DettaglioRicerca.php?IdNews=1267, et.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcamillini (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the kind of sources we are looking for that would establish notability. In fact, some of them don't even mention Guicciardi. Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Against deletion~~ with reference to Blanchardb's note it's hard to make sense of his criticism, comparing the figure of Guicciardi with what is on in the wikipedia's contemporary luthiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_luthiers#Contemporary). Rcamillini (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote twice. You are welcome to add comments, however. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note The article has been improved, take a look! Rcamillini (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The improvement you made was merely the addition of what we call unreferenced puffery and does not address the issues mentioned above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot agree, actually the impovements are facts you can check easily calling the declared associations: ALI (Associazione Liurtai Italiani); EILA (International Society of Violin and Bow Makers);Rotary (Vignola - Castelfranco Emilia - Bazzano). The truth is lutiers live in a niche world, rarely contemporary violin makers break the news, they are far from the stage, no wonder it is not so easy to find the kind of evidences you are looking for even on the web.Rcamillini (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This maker is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.213.177 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) — 93.39.213.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being good does not make him inherently notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: Guicciardi is an outstanding violin maker, many musicians especially in Italy, Germany and Japan play a Guicciardi violin, viola or cello. He is the most important pupil of Ansaldo Poggi (one of the most important Italian luthier). Marcella Ghigi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.37.156 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - President of EILA (International Society of Violin and Bow Makers. Perhaps an arcane topic but seems a well known figure within the violin-making world. Article is not done in a commercial manner. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Rcamillini that rarely contemporary violin makers appear in the news, and strictly following Wikipedia's notability criteria probably more than 50% of the makers listed here should be deleted. Maestro Guicciardi is with no doubt a well known and reputed collegue, someone who will not be forgotten by our History.--RegazziR (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an unsourced BLP and all the keep votes are by assertion, except one and the subject isn't even mentioned in that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Appears he may be notable but further work is required. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and wikify and extend. Gian Carlo Guicciardi is well know, with many sources available to satisfy notability, so why was he nominated. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Stifle's reasoning makes perfect sense, and is the best way to balance the possible notability with the present lack of sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:08, 23 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 merge to James Bond (film series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between James Bond novels and films

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

Violates WP:OR Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there may actually be reliable secondary sources to use as references for the changes made in adapting the books to film, this information is more properly included in the articles on the individual films and, less so, the individual books. They should not be compiled into this type of trivia. And having skimmed through some of the book and film articles, they do cover this ground. And as it seems is consistent with film and television focused list article crafted by TMC1982, the sections of this list are copied, most times verbatim, from sections of those individual articles. This frankensteined back fill list isn't helpful, it isn't with the intent of a list article, and it sure isn't a "good start" for an article. - J Greb (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is actually a well-written article, but it's also one of the worse content forks I have ever seen. As J Greb hinted at, it's basically trivia disguised as an encyclopedic article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article should be broken up and each part made a section in its movie's article, if that's not the case already. Wolfview (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let everybody know, that I initially put article itself within the "James Bond novels" page. I only changed my mind, because I feared that the article would know come across as too lengthy, hard to follow and overpacked! TMC1982 (talk) 01:11 a.m., 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was noticeable with tracking related edits. But it doesn't change much since the section that was created within James Bond novels, and then split off, was constructed almost entirely by copying verbatim sections from the articles on the various Bond novels. The odd ones out were copied from the film articles. The only difference is that as a section, the "list" would have been removed by copy editing rather than going through an AfD. - J Greb (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Wolfview and the first commenter. I think this information would be better included in the articles on the films/ books themselves. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:01, 16 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 delete. JForget 00:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Shouoto

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

I could find no evidence that this manga artist has received any coverage by reliable third-party sources which allows her to pass the inclusion guidelines at WP:AUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE nor could I find any evidence that would suggest that any of her works could pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this article has serious problems with the guidelines of notability and no reliable sources to cover it. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No convincing evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 11 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USA (Horrible Histories)

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

Alas, it's one of my favourite books, (but no, my very favourites in the HH series are Wicked Words and the Shadow in the Gallows), but I just know it's not notable enough. Even Bloody Scotland is more notable. Or the Horrible History of the World. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article mainly presents a product. No secondary coverage or discussion of its importance. The main article on the series lists each title already. (Looks like fun books.) Wolfview (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the article has a POV too (I forgot to point out). According to this article, it focuses on the bad facts, which is a POV. The book is mostly about the negative things that Columbus, Washington, etc, did. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Afraid you're misunderstanding. The book has a POV, but that does not mean the article is not done from a NPOV. Edward321 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the negative things about Columbus etc are not necessarily 'bad', as presented by the creator. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that has anything to do with keeping or deleting this article. The book could have the worst, most dishonest POV problems but if secondary sources said it was notable then the article could be kept. Or it could be the greatest history book ever written, but without people saying so the article should be deleted. Wolfview (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmph. Entertaining book. Popular book. Merge into a larger Horrible Histories article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- What about a sub-page of Horrible Histories called "List of books in Horrible Histories", much like the many pages for "list of episodes.."? That way there can be a short summary of each book (much like there is on this page, but more concise and less fan-like) and leaving th main page to look less like a massive list of book to more of a proper article.
  - Good idea, really, although I'm not sure if someone will bother to do it, because there are zillions of books in HH, HS, HG, MM, TK/Really, DF/HF, WL, etc. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its not sourced it should be nuked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find references to establish the notability of the subject. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spartaz's reasoning. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:08, 16 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw-Lan Wang

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

Subject has been tagged as unreferenced for 18 months. Taiwantaffy (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 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, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep: if the lack of references bugs you, go find some and put them in. I've already put in a(n admittedly not brilliant) source that at least proves that she's a tiwaneese media business woman --Arkelweis (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the way it works. I searched, I read the Chinese Wikipedia article, and I thought her notability was borderline at the very best, so I nominated it. If you or somebody else can prove notability then great - it's always good to see well-referenced articles which establish the notability of borderline subjects like this. But at the moment I don't think there's enough there. I have in the past added tons of references to other Taiwan-related articles, so if I nominate something for deletion, it's because I really don't think it's notable (especially when it comes to BLPs). But, like I said, I'm always happy to be proven wrong. Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:58, 2 August 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, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See Category:Unreferenced BLPs from August 2007; there are BLP articles from August 2007 that are tagged as "unreferenced". Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Not having sources alone is not necessarily a cause for deletion. As for actual sources, here are a few I easily found using Google: [31], [32], and [33] Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put those in then? Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I worked on it a bit and I've created a ref. section. I have also used the ref. provided by Arkelweis as stated above. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The added reference from Taiwan Today is a reliable source which establishes notability. Taiwantaffy (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the new references. Shadowjams (talk) 21:25, 8 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 delete. I have discarded spa votes leaving stong arguments to delete for inadequate sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mc subzero

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

I fail to find non-trivial coverage. The sources cited in the article only indicate that he got minimal playing time but none are actually in-depth interviews or articles. He has yet to release a full album. (Google search is complicated by the fact that there is a better known artist known as MC subzero permafrost.) Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MC SubZero is an original underground MC - His legitimate appearance on B-Real of Cypress Hill's album was indeed global and available in local retail stores and online. MC Peramafrost doesnt have any notable publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.157.174 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 August 2010 — 92.15.157.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unverified (was it this subzero or the other subzero or from discogs Sub Zero (with a space)) appearence on one track on a not notable (from what is shown) mixtape does not make you notable. Search found trivial coverage for permafrost but not for this subzero. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Duffbeerforme; - MC SubZero does have high search rankings and MORE content then of MC SubZero Permafrost - To be quite frank and factual, the first entry on google search for MC SubZero is his Myspace Profile - which then other searches including youtube video and other relevant web searches for MC SubZero (Look carefully). A total of 8 RELEVANT searches on the first page of google search shows he has more traffic than MC Permafrost. As for notability - Has MC SubZero Peramforst performed exclusively with anybody who has achieved multi platinum records and selling over 18 million records worldwide? Cypress Hill are a world wide pioneers of hiphop music and culture, and for MC SubZero to perform with them and appear on the lead rappers album is a verified notable experience. To question what is notability and not, you have to have a trump card which is 'viable'. Its the only way to show your status and credibility. Permaforst has released NO albums and has NO MUSIC content apart from a few live performances, she only has ONE download available on amazon. Please do not compare artists without finding out TRUE FACTUAL information. — 92.15.195.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP* - Substance of musical notability the artist MUST have one of the following - Criteria states artist MUST have been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - Now MC SubZero has appeared TWICE on the BBC British Asian Network Channel - with sources included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.139.145 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.15.139.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 as blatant promotion. Possibly even A7 as well. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICIAN. Also, he most certainly hasn't been the subject of a broadcast. Not even sure it's the same person, the BBC source only says "Sub Zero". Regardless, simply appearing on a radio show (twice) is not enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - Christopher, you said that the article was 'blatant promotion' - Now as it stands the article states credentials of a musician - Their is no 'blatant' promotion conspiracy. MC SubZero appeared on this BBC radio station which the sources verify and also had a half an hour set and interview within that program. Thats notable considering the BBC is the largest broadcasting radio station in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia:Notability (music)

1.Criterion 12 states that an artist is notable if he "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" - MC SubZero has achieved this.

2.Criterion 9 states that the artist/band is notable if artist "Has won or placed in a major music competition" - MC SubZero won a competition in 2005 to appear on Cypress Hill's lead rappers album - the article produces sources of this accomplishment.

From this we see MC SubZero is a notable artist and should remain as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunanb (talk • contribs) 10:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Varunanb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —fetch ·comms 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Hirschfeld

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

WP:N - Yes, there are sources, but the two seemingly independent sources that actually discuss the subject appear to be the classic straight-from-PR-agency-to-magazine pieces that are pretty fluffy and slanted towards the article subject's POV. Mosmof (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Abe Hirschfeld, because most of the articles about him compare him to his late father, and not much more. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is plenty of info which denotes him as independent and well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has been edited - pls advise, clean up, etc ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of news coverage about him; I added a couple of links to the article since it was short of Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon a quick glance, most, if not all, of the links that are about the subject seem to be reprints of press releases, which wouldn't make them independent of the subject. 01:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk)

The The New York Times, the New York Post, and Bloomberg are not press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 7 August 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, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mel. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:51, 10 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 delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmie Keegan

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

Delete - minor fictional character with no sources that indicate independent notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Character is covered in sufficient detail elsewhere and the name is too obscure to be a viable search term so no redirect or merge is needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor Ugly Betty characters are so out of fashion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 August 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, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sourceless plot summary article about a very minor fictional character. A merge is not appropriate because there is no usable content in this article and no suitable merge target. Reyk _YO! 07:40, 8 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds (TV series)

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

Not sure if this topic is notable and verifiable. There seems to be a lack of reliable sources for it on the web - but I'll be very happy to withdraw if some good stuff turns up. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 August 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, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three years old and hasn't even been updated in that time. "Sound will be a new weekly music programme to be broadcast on BBC Two from October 2007". Christopher Connor (talk) 23:38, 14 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 delete. NW (Talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players with dual nationality

List of association football players with dual nationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Another of those trivial lists. It is overwhelmingly incomplete, inconsistent, and an orphaned article (only a redirect and a user page link to it). VEO15 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to have never been fully listed, so I've re-added the AFD template to the article and added it to a debate for today. Esteffect (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does have a use, but too many players have dual nationality (most French internationals, for a start). Esteffect (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content of this article, if it is ever to become comprehensive, would be too massive to make it a feasible subject. – Pee Jay 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as article creator. The list is not trivial - dual-nationality in football is a manjor issue - it may be incomplete (but says so, and many lists aren't, so it's a moot point), I don't understand how it is "inconsistent", and being an orphan is no reason to delete. Esteffect - saying that "too many players have dual nationality" surely means that it merits having a list of them - a list which is organised, referenced, and kept tidy, as this one is. Look at the article history - I am constantly removing unreferenced players that people add! And if the article gets too big, it can be broken down into seperate articles - size is not an issue here. Giant Snowman 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there simply is too many. In France alone, there has probably been thousands of dual nationality footballers, and most Soviet footballers from a short time ago possessed multiple nationalities too (such as Czechoslovakia's entire team). Esteffect (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But size shouldn't be an issue...surely we want an encyclopedia to be comprehensive? Giant Snowman 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Size is not a matter. It can be split to A to C, D to F, or a separate list for Argentine. the list currently with citations. Matthew_hk t c 06:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems arbitrary to me, if dual-nationality is relevant to a player then it can be mentioned on his/her article. A list which can never be completed which, whilst not a reason for deletion in itself, is not necessarily desirable! --129.234.252.67 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will either incorrectly contain or misleadingly ignore technically impossible combinations of dual nationalities, in cases where one or both countries do not recognise the concept. Would in many cases require two citations per individual, which is an implausible amount of referencing that on a large scale will far exceed the template limits of wikipedia pages. Although I can see how this might in some cases be relevant (for instance an international from outside of these regions gaining EU or US citizenship to get around nationality restrictions in domestic leagues), it certainly isn't universally important. --W F C-- 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Horrendous concept for a list; it is pure trivia and can never be complete. The people on the list have are not notable for having dual nationality, and they share nothing in common that would warrant listing them together other than the fact their parents have different nationalities, which is a complete non-fact. Big Dom 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per bigdom. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 22:08, 12 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangry}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etsuyo Ota}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucknow Public School}}<!--Relisted-->