Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:47, 21 July 2011

< 20 July	22 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Should be brought individually to AfD, or just boldly merged, especially as at least one of the characters is clearly not independently notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Kibre

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - three non-notable fictional characters from a defunct TV series. There are no sources that establish that any of these characters are notable. Two of the articles have had sourcing requests for over three years, but none will be forthcoming because they don't exist. Sources that do exist merely mention the characters and are limited to such things as "Bebe Neuwirth, who played Tracey Kibre on Trial by Jury" and don't establish notability. Calvin Grant (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some leeway for having a page for Tracey and there are articles found talking about her. Case in point People Magazine on this character (the ADA) and the DA from Law & Order. [1] There are also more recent articles that mention the character plus do Wikipedia the added honor of a link to this page. Why turn down free publicity?[2]
It should also be noted that TV Guide also has pages of info on this character's actions in episodes.[3] What this really needs is somekind of expert on this show to fill in the detailed story on the character. Silent Bob (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these supposed sources are exactly the sort of passing mentions of the characters that I noted in the nomination and they do not establish the notability of the characters. The People article is a brief review of the series that mentions the Kibre and Gaffney characters in a single sentence each and make no mention of the Salazar character. The second source, an article about Barry Bonds, mentions the Kibre character in one sentence and makes no mention of the other two characters. The TV Guide source is a single-sentence plot summary of an episode of the series. They establish that the Kibre character exists but they existence and notability are not the same thing. What these really need are some kind of sources that offer significant coverage of the characters and no such coverage exists in reliable sources. Calvin Grant (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Tracey Kibre is notable, having been noticed by sources such as The Cambridge guide to American theatre and the New York Times. The nominator seems to be on a disruptive deletion spree vs Law and Order and gives the impression of being a banned sockpuppet like Dalejenkins. Warden (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "noticed" is not significant coverage in reliable sources. "Oh look, a thing!" is not the standard for inclusion. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. And I do not appreciate being falsely accused of things. Personal attacks serve no purpose other than to expose your own weaknesses. Calvin Grant (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all nom is fatally flawed in that it presumes "defunct" matters. The current state of a TV show does not change the fact that it was broadcast on a national network, hence notable, and is entitled to a list of (not individually notable) characters. Thus, if either of the two individuals are non-notable, they should be merged to the general character list rather than being deleted entirely. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree 75% with what User:Jclemens has said. I think the pages should stay as they are. But also on the basis that User:Calvin Grant is an alias of many other "users" seeking notable pages mostly in the Law & Order (franchise) to be deleted. There will be a full investigation into why most pages are being "put up" for deletion for 'nobility'.--SVU4671 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a no-brainer even though the nominator has been blocked. Whether or not "defunct show" is a compelling argument, it was not the only argument made: the dearth of reliable secondary sources which discuss these characters in any significant depth certainly is a compelling argument. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Whether it be a show that went for 20 seasons, or in this case 1, the characters are notable as well as important. Tracey Kibre, for example, not only apeared on TBJ, but also made special appearances on L&O and SVU. And that's barring the fact that the nominator who has been blocked as a SP, has obviously some conflict with the L&O Franchise, nominating many episodes for deletion, as well as redirecting. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any real-world sources which cover Tracy Kibre in significant detail. I'm sure she's a very interesting character for people who like the Law and Order franchise, but if that doesn't translate to significant non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources then there's no need to have a separate article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, my vote hasn't changed, regarding your opinion. There is no time limit on collecting notable sources. And also for the fact of the misplaced nomination for deletion - nominator had a clear COI with all L&O episode articles. Maybe s/he was a CSI fan. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, so it doesn't really matter whether your "vote has changed" or not. The deletion rationale was that there are no secondary sources to establish notability. If none are added then that rationale is obviously valid, especially given that Wikipedia's Law and Order fans are aware of this AfD and have a whole week to add sources. "No time limit" is not a reason to keep stubs with inadequate referencing as separate articles: the correct solution here is quite obviously to merge to the list article, and if sources are found in the future it can be re-split. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Clean bad faith nomination by Sock master. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the nomination is tainted by its having been made by a sock, the deletion argument is cogent. Procedural close here would be actively counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The only solution to a sockmaster avoiding a block is to completely ignore what they say. Otherwise, blocks are meaningless and we as a community have no ability to to ensure standards of behavior. All edits made by a sock as part of a block evasion are inherently illegitimate and must be reverted without regard for the actual content. All nominations such as this must be closed ASAP, regardless of the merits of the argument. Blocks that aren't enforced are the same as no block at all, which the community has deemed a recepie for chaos. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to Jclemens recently here, this is not a correct reading of policy, which does not automatically equate "sock" with "ban, revert on sight". Looking at it, that might even have concerned the same sock as in this case. We do not unperson people lightly around here, and it would be a waste of time to close this AfD procedurally only for it to be inevitably re-filed when sources do not get added to it in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tracey Kibre as some effort has been made to establish notability through third party sources. Merge the other two into main article unless notability can be demonstrated. Articles can always be separated at a later date if someone is willing to research and write them properly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all AFD is not the venue for this. Character articles are almost always merged if not independently notable, not deleted outright. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They actually were merged, and this was undone. Historially the only way to resolve this sort of thing has been taking the pages in question to AfD, as the only people who watch talk pages of article like this are inevitably people who feel that it is desperately important to have individual articles on them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any precedent for fully protecting redirects for merged characters? I've dealt with this problem too, I've had to hammer down on stuff like Scorpia Rising (novel) (after the original title, no disambig, was merged into Alex Rider) and Peter Creedy and Eric Finch from V for Vendetta. Really, really annoying and aggravating to have to constantly visit the pages just because such edits undoing the merges can easily slip under the radar if you just put them on your watchlist. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there's precedent. I'd expect that to be the outcome if the pages are merged: unprotection can be trivially requested if significant reliable sources do show up (and note that, contrary to the assertions above, not one of these three articles yet has any non-trivial secondary sourcing at all; the two at Tracey Kibre are trivial in the extreme, consisting of one sentence in a TV guide review and a trivial mention in a one-paragraph plot summary respectively). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creevedonnell Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at

which resulted in deletions. It plays at second teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 11:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per nom, this is an identical situation to those mentioned and there is no indication of meeting GNG despite tagging & the creator being aware of the issue for some time. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator ... other, similar AfDs listed above are comparable to this one. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage suggesting that this is more notable than any other club. I didn't see any notable sources on both a Yahoo! and Google search. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was based upon the lack of signifigant coverage. (It's worth noting that unsupported statements are typically given very little weight by closing administrators.) Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elctrikchair

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

Delete no notability shown for this band. albums not on important label. touring lacks coverage. band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Hail and Horns may be good but others aren't, inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:music. last afd closed no consensus with leave to speedy renominate due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with all do respect this is the thrid time you nominated this... there is plenty of coverage there is sources on this band the terrorizer comp has an article on page 3 in the october issue of 2010 there is a mini write up of the band and hails in horns did a full page spred. being listed on billboard and mtv,com gives it legitiamiacy sorry you have have to be signed or in the register in stores to get that. This is a troll keep nominating this over and over again it was defeated give it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As I had stated before: In addition to Hails and Horns, I think MTV Networks and Billboard are fairly reputable, and Terrorizer did write about the band, giving a third party opinion in addition to the band being on the CD. I see no reason to delete this article. Many Oarfin Records releases are on Wikipedia, as are many independent releases, including Trent Reznor's recent work. Labels aren't really relevant players in a band's notability anymore. I think this article perfectly satisfies wp:music.BusyWikipedian (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I had stated before in reply to your first Wikipedia edit, MTV and Billboard are reputable but they haven't written anything about Elctrikchair. Inclusion on a Terrorizer sampler cd is not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band Elctrikchair has been around since 2003. n. . It would be sillly to hate on a band just because they aren't in the public's ear 24/7. I personally have seen multiple videos online of this band and they have their own website that has legitimate distribution and sells. I feel it is silly to find this band "not notable" as a legitimate band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneFilmmaker13 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — StoneFilmmaker13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, period. Band hasn't gained in notability since the article was previously deleted by consensus. May need to be salted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reponse uncle milty youre stating an opinion with nothing backing up anything you are saying with MTV Networks and Billboard being a player in this unfortunately notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect to the editors wishing to keep this article, the only reason it wasn't deleted last time was because there was virtually no participation. Let's go through the sources on the page, one at a time:

Terrorizer magazine - Appears to be an extreme music magazine with limited circulation. Not an ideal source.
Maris The Great interview - The About Page reads, Who The Fuck is Maris The Great!?] and he also seems to be another artist in extreme music. The source isn't exactly ideal in terms of its independence of the subject.
Metal Archives listing - This is just a discography and listing. This doesn't provide evidence of notability as needed by WP:NMUSIC.
Hails and Horns magazine - Does not appear to be a notable magazine, perhaps of local interest only.
MetalWarrants - Is a deadlink.
Interview with Electrikchair - This is a blog entry, and WP generally doesn't accept blogs as evidence of notability per WP:BLOGS.
IndyFest - This doesn't even mention the band, just one of its members who left.
Billboard and MTV listings - Being listed on Billboard is insufficient. No awards have been given for the album, it has not charted, and it is just a listing on a notable website. That's not significant coverage of the band. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music Industry News Network - This is a very brief source. I also note that news can be submitted to the website for free, which means the info is probably not independent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!)

Therefore, because these sources do not fulfill the needed requirements of WP:NMUSIC, I am recommending this article be deleted. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all do respect from a series of admins that are 16 years old who play Nintendo all day(lol). Using foul language in this debate proving that the children threatening to delete this page is irrelevant. In response [jetherbolt] for one Maris the Great is an international interviewer and obviously you haven't looked at the bands he has killed(which is how he does his interviews) and is published in [Hails and Horns Magazine]. You discredit Hails and Horns when it is an international publication. There are several bands on here who list billboard and mtv as sources and none of them have an article written about them but yet that's ok. Even is a source is breif its still has legitimacy. I noticed this band is targeted I can see that. All the sources listed do meet WP:NMUSIC ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment. Can't give a real vote, as most of the sources are on sites that are blocked from my workplace, but thought I would offer some information anyway. No one is claiming that Elctrikchair is not a real band, or that the information is false in anyway. Nor should it be inferred that they are not notable among heavy metal fans. However, if you look at notability strictly from the position of Wikipedia inclusion, there are guidelines to meet. While MTV and Billboard in themselves are fully notable, being merely listed on those websites does not automatically grant notability to the subject. Having independant third-party write-ups specifically on this band on those websites, however, WOULD grant notability. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Terrorizer article. However, I do not see why that would not be allowed as a reliable third-party source. It is a publication with a circulation of about 12,000 with a specialty in this genre of music. →^Jog_Con← 22:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in favor of keeping this article, I am a bit upset to see juvenile retaliation against those opposed to keeping it. I do want to mention that I have seen Hails and Horns on the shelves at Barnes and Noble. Terrorizer is considered one of the biggest authorities when it comes to extreme genres of music, as JogCon has pointed out it has large circulation. I've personally seen it at Barnes and Noble and it was readily available at Borders. The IndyFest link does in fact use the band's name, which is mentioning it, for that matter mentioning someone leaving a band is still mentioning said band. The link happens to mention the album being released around that time, discusses the genre of the band, and where the band is from, in addition to other details about the band. Maris the Great is a notable figure in extreme music as well, and seeing that he is not a member of the band he is independent of the entity Elctrikchair.BusyWikipedian (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because a subject was deleted in the past doesnt mean they/it cant become notable....passes WP:MUSIC,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I hate to sound harsh, but all of your AfD !votes seem to have the worst possible rationale. I just scrolled back through a bunch of them, and they mostly consist of "it's notable" or "it exists". Please don't just say it passes WP:MUSIC if it doesn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being of different opinions is not a reason to Wikipedia:Wikistalking someone. Im not saying you do but it starting to smell bad. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drumaness Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at

which resulted in deletions. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 11:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per nom, this is an identical situation to those mentioned and there is no indication of meeting GNG despite tagging & the creator being aware of the issue for some time. NB: the Junior Cup referred to is a subsidiary competition to the Senior Cup. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google research shows that virually all hits are promotional or social-networking. None of the clubs meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements. Clogher Cricket Club does have a few news articles about vandalism incidents at their facility, but those are minor, local news events. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soulforge

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent sources. Local Talk Magazine is a little bit of local interest coverage. release not on important label. competetition not major. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this article i am the band manager, and it was approved by Wikpedia i formatted it to a better layout, i added links to most entries such as local talk to show readers the articles mentioned, so they can then read them. When you discussed " no real notabilty" maybe you need to re-read the article, this band has members from international known acts. this is a proper recording band. the Album artwork was done by Felipe Machado Franco, an elite renown artist for major label bands, this is our artwork the band PAID for, so this belongs to us, and as such has been placed here. I urge you to re-think the idea of deletion, as its unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matolocalypse (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read about Conflicts of interest, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Then read up about notability for bands. This afd is not about wether they are a real band or not, it's about are they notable?. This article has not been approved by Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Struggling to find a decent source.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distaudio

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent sources. Rave magazine is just a publication "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". others are not reliable sources. releases not on important label. airplay not national rotation. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Distaudio. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised by duffbeerforme are invalid. Rave magazine is part of the street press music media in Brisbane and Distaudio was interviewed in this magazine by a music journalist. All other radio stations and music media are valid, third party references to cite. References have all been updated. I trust there will be no further issues to address. Menschmaster (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete created by single purpose editor indicating conflict of interest. nothing in gnews and nothing in Australian search engine trove [4]. no reliable sources no article. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falguni Lakhani

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. all she gets is 1 gnews hit for getting married [5]. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on both Yahoo! and Google, except for the article on the marriage and her IMDb page. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Ringer

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

Actor has only appeared in two films. Article is written very biased and poorly. JDDJS (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a case of fixing the article to remove the bias. The actor only had two projects, but they are both big-budget starring roles projects, even if The Last Airbender didn't do much at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how big his role is going to be in Cowboys and Aliens? I don't recall seeing him in any of the commercials. JDDJS (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his name's on the film poster, it's about as big as you can get. Nate • (chatter) 07:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nate. What is this delete actors we hate day? Seriously guys check TV Guide on this guy to see if he still is out there.[6] He has done interviews and had others talk about him in interviews. If there is a question about who wrote this wiki (I doubt it was pure advertisement), I suggest you rewrite it not delete it because the article itself has credit.Silent Bob (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think being the lead in an international film that hit #1 in several counties, including Russia, is enough reason to keep his article. Wikipedia shouldn't be solely USA-centric. That said, his second film is being released in 8 days, whether his performance is judged well or judged poorly will impact his career. Denaar (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn I didn't realize that there was a previous AFD which resulted in a keep when I nominated this for deletion. With his new film due for release soon, we can wait and see how his career turns out. I might renominate this for deletion in the future but I think for now it can be kept. JDDJS (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Good catch by User:Metropolitan90. Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Protest of Kenya

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS This article doesn't explain its significance beyond that of a news event. In addition, it is entirely unsourced. Ryan Vesey contribs 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps userfy. This seems to be a good-faith effort by a new user unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. The article could be called a stub or a start, but it lacks any references, even improperly formatted ones. It also lacks a date or other details that would enable another editor to search for sources for a protest demonstration that drew just 100 people, according to the text. Though unfamiliar with Kenyan politics, I can only imagine that there have been many such events in Kenyan history, and this article is just too vague to stay, at least as its now written. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Wikinews. In the event that this is not possible Keep and expand first to see the potential of this article. Beta M (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I search Google News for "Kenya" and "protest", I get stories about a protest that happened today (or yesterday), one that happened about two weeks ago, one that happened about three weeks ago, several that happened in 2010, some that happened in 2008, and so on. How can anyone reading this article even know which specific protest it is describing? Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably this protest. However, I can't see anything about this one that is especially significant.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation of the first two paragraphs of this article. And even if this weren't a copyvio, it would still be unclear to me why this protest involving only about 100 people would be notable enough for coverage in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger

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

as per WP:CRYSTAL, this event hasn't even occurred. fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has been confirmed by multiple sources, and has been officially announced by the UFC and Bud Light.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing doesn't make something notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being sperglords. It's a major UFC event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.108.140 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all the sources are kickboxing related. how about something independent? LibStar (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are from sites that cover MMA news, not kickboxing news (at least from what I saw). The independent clause of WP:GNG says, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The subject in this case is "UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger" and it's creator is the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Coverage outside of UFC, its press releases and its promotional material is independent by my interpretation of WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, noted. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. There is sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. An event that is scheduled to happen, almost certainly will happen, and has received coverage in sources (so that the article can actually say something) does not fail WP:Crystal. Croctotheface (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see coverage in mainstream media. it's all fighting sources mainly reporting that the event will happen rather than anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also believe the nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. I have tried to discuss this misunderstanding with the nominator, but could not get a constructive discussion going to illustrate that martial arts references can be "independent of the subject" since the subject is an event, not an entire sport. Multiple references are available to support the notability of this event. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. While the sources aren't much, they meet the meager standard for GNG, are sufficiently independent of the fight organization, and accurately assess what is going on at the event. Normally I'd agree with User:LibStar about the crystal ball, but the sources specifically establish the venue, the sponsor, and the draw match, so notability is satisfied and the event is very likely to occur, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply in this case. Whether the event is sufficiently notable is the topic of this discussion. It appears consensus is yes. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food Island

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ryan Vesey contribs 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Food Island creator has also created Food island. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, will that be deleted when this one is? Ryan Vesey contribs 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've PRODed the other article, as it clearly violates both WP:GNG and WP:FUTURE. I have little doubt that there'll be objection to deletion; however, we need to make sure that Food island, Food Island, and Possible new Disney Channel show all get deleted, as the author redirected Food Island to Possible new Disney Channel show (not sure if that affects this AFD at all). Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Inks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Horsager

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

A motivational speaker and Illusionist. The article is more of an Ad (four links on where to buy his book). In 1999, he started out as a "Christian Illusionist" as one source called him. He spent time touring. He went back to school and graduated in 2007. He now is a motivational speaker on the issue of "trust in business". Published a book on trust by a Christian book publisher. Unable to find sources outside of speaking announcements or the PR Newswire article that has been plastered everywhere. The PR statement is the first reference in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews reveals insufficient independent coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 links to where the book can be purchased have been removed. This should alleviate the "ad" feel. Also, the PR article has been removed as a source. Other credible sources have been found. They will be added over the next few days/weeks. Velocity9 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Bio, based on paucity of independent sources. --Noleander (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost nothing in article indicates notability. Horsager's a "Certified Speaking Professional" which article says is "prestigious" but this is from the National Speakers Association - perhaps a non-notable organisation - whose own website doesn't seem to indicate it's especially prestigious.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too couldn't find any third-party mentions aside from the PRNewswire article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of just results articles. almost all the participants in these pages are non notable. women's kickboxing receives far less coverage than men's kickboxing so completely fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Very few competitors and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While i find all the sports related articles (well almost) boring and uninformative, i can easily see how it is a notable event for those who are around this field. Beta M (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for keeping. where are the sources to meet WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles don't show any notability or independent sources. It's hard to claim events with 2-4 competitors are notable. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to your account (which I am sure you have) to comment on AfDs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unsourced articles about competitions with only a few competitors. They appear to just be sports results with no supported claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No satisfaction of WP:EVENT. Wikipedia is not a sportspage, though worthy subjects like sports, sports personalities and sporting events may be notable enough for inclusion. This is a set of fight cards. No independent coverage. No RS. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Jaff

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

This article (created by Hjaf (talk · contribs)) contains a long list of printed references, however, it is impossible to verify its content with the help of independent online resources, and I don't believe that the listed sources back up the content of our article. Why? I was a bit surprised when I found four articles with identical list of references, including all details, such as paging. The other articles have been created by Shajaf (talk · contribs):

Mahmoud Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mohammed Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Dawood Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Zaher Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

There's no evidence (aside from the copypasted list in our articles and two unreliable external links) confirming that the people are notable for Wikipedia. I suspect conflict of interest and possibly a sockpuppetry (note the similarity between the articles and usernames of the creators: Shajaf (talk · contribs), Hjaf (talk · contribs)). I'm including all the articles in this AfD nomination, as I think there's a significant similarity between the articles. However, I'll create separate discussions if objected. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - We can add another article, (Jaff), to the list. It too was written by Shajaf (talk · contribs) and contains the identical list of references, as seen in this edit. Also, the edit is dated 10th June, therefore the list had to have been copypasted to Sardar Jaff, as seen in this edit, which is dated 18th June, eight days later. The same refrence list was copypasted to the Mahmoud Jaff article, also on the 10th June, as seen in this edit, and again to Zaher Jaff. as seen here. With the best good faith Shajaf can be said to have intentionally copypasted a bunch of references, however detailed and scholarly, to several articles to which they do not relate, ergo none of the six articles is credible, but most particularly Sardar Jaff, which got the ref list eight days later than the rest. As for sockpuppetry, it might be simply that Shajaf/Hjaf are quite innocently one new editor unsure as to what name to edit under and so no deception is intended. This is suggested by the fact that all five of Shajafs articles were substantially written on the 7th june, then Hjaf's single article is written on the 18th, a possible interim change of name. As for the conflict of interest, it would seem Shajaf/Hjaf is /are member/s of the Jaff tribe. It would seem to me acceptable that a tribe member write about the tribe as long as NPOV is maintained. Mark^Dask 09:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Although just the fact that the references are printed rather than online is definitely insufficient grounds, this is most likely a sockpoppetry and some sort of vanity writing. Beta M (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not that the references are printed - they are probably all sound references - but references to what, and to which article particularly? As things stand one might as well write an article about pink wool and cut and paste the same references. It is that they are being applied to all the articles irrespective of content that renders both references, and subsequently the articles, unsupportable. Mark^Dask 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a leader of a Kurdish tribe. I'd suggest that Jaff tribe would be a merger candidate for all of these, assuming the existence of the tribe is verifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it looks that the list of sources is copy-pasted directly from the article Jaff tribe. It is someone's attempt to push their family history to Wikipedia. I would agree with redirecting the article Jaff, but I disagree with keeping/merging the other articles, unless a really good and reliable source comes up. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the record of Jaff tribe edits, going back to 16th April, as here, that Vejvančický is right - the references were cutandpasted from that date. - This means the entire Jaff series is suspect. Shajaf's talkpage demonstrates that his articles were suspect very early - but nothing came of the prods. I think Hjaf/Shajaf/ has had other names, but the raw fact is the copypasted refs for the entire Shagaf/Hjaf series of articles - as listed - are duplicitiously imported, possibly to cover a significant copyvio, as suggested here and here. Mark^Dask 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that this article is inappropriate, primarily because of the vagueness of its title, which doesn't (from what the commentators here have indicated) line up with any system of categorisation used anywhere else in the world. As such, there are some serious notability concerns (and yes, lists also have to pass notability). If someone wishes to recreate the article, with clear indications on how this topic is notable and/or in line with actual systems of literary classification, they are welcome to. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

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

The page contains only original research and facts can't be verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negativecharge (talk • contribs)

Huh? It only contains a list of book titles. What original research or facts are you referring to? Will Beback talk 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the fact of inclusion would constitute original research; each entry should have a reliable source saying "Boox XYZ portrays sexual relations between minors and adults", and if not should be removed. If an editor reads a book and says to himself "Hmmm, this book portrays sexual relations between minors and adults, I think I'll add it to the list" this would be allowable iff it is prima facie uncontestably and incontravertibly true. However, the concepts "portray", "sexual relations", and "minor" can be slippery especially when one is dealing with a work of fiction, so few books would meet this criterion, probably, except for works of explicit pornography. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The list has sources, so I don't think there is any original research going on here. If you want to verify the information, go read the book. On the other hand, I'm not sure why a list of books which portray pedophilia is notable. Seems kind of random to me (like List of books portraying empty coffee cups), but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. —SW— ^soliloquize 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above "If you want to verify the information, go read the book" is not the Wikipedia way. "If you want to verify the information, go find another person who has read the book" and published his comment in a reliable source is the Wikipedia way. 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  - I think you are taking 'no original research' too far. If i have a photo of the celebrity, i say "this is the photo of this celebrity, if you don't believe me, look at the photo". I do not go and find somebody publishing an academic paper on the fact that this celebrity is shown in this specific photograph. Beta M (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it's a list of random titles, which could be way out of date and not accurate, and not really a topic of any importance. There could be millions of "X that portrays Y in Z country" which are plain junk. Negativecharge (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conflates too many separate topics: books where the person would be considered underage now but an adult in the period when the book was written (I presume this is the reason for including Dido, Queen of Carthage, which I haven't read), books about child molestation and pedophilia, books that probably wouldn't be listed if the relationship was consensual rather than rape (Speak (novel), in which a high school senior rapes a freshman), books where the topic doesn't appear to be a significant element in the plot, pederastic literature, and still others. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most entries are notable in their own right but don't necessarily serve as classical examples of the topic. If anything, something more along the lines of "Sexual abuse of minors in literature" might make for a more helpful - if difficult to write - article. Several Times (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And as it turns out, the extensive AfD discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction seems to cover the remaining qualms. Several Times (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting situation. This is the fourth time this list has been to AfD. What have we learned so far? That this list is controversial. That some people see a value in it, and others don't, but there's no clear consensus. That the list itself has been problematic and continues to be despite four AfDs. There has long been a concern about the Original Research aspect of the list, and that concern is valid. What books should be on the list, and how are they to be identified? Using the books themselves as evidence is unsatisfactory and is against policy. Sometimes there are no bright lines. Should Romeo and Juliet be included as most scholars agree that Juliet is 13 and that Romeo is between 16 and 18. No. Because 16 is today not regarded as "adult" while at the time of the play 13 was not considered a "minor". The parameters of the list are poorly defined and open to interpretation and disagreement. There have been some plausible arguments put forward that the list is a useful research tool, but as has been pointed out in the various discussions, the books are fairly random, and the scope too wide and poorly defined to be of much use to anyone looking into whatever it is that people might be researching. The list is apparently intended to include all sorts of books and all manner of relationships, so it is not clear what the subject might be, though "paedophilia in literature" seems favourite. I suspect that a list of major and significant literary works dealing with paedophilia would be useful, and the best place to start such a list would be Pedophilia#In literature, television and film, and it might be better if the section dealt with the literary works in extended prose rather than simply listing them. A list is unhelpful and tells the reader little. It might also be useful to have a separate list of papers on research into the topic - a further reading section appended to the end of Pedophilia - though ideally the information in those papers would be summarised and contained within the Pedophilia article. The subject of "paedophilia in literature" is viable - there is a notable paper by Elizabeth Freeman which appeared in American Literature: "Honeymoon with a Stranger: Pedophiliac Picaresques from Poe to Nabokov" so a simple delete is probably not the most appropriate solution to this issue. I suggest a clean up. Remove all the unsourced books. Clearly define the parameters, and use reliable sources on the topic to build a prose article on "paedophilia in literature". In fact, rename the article Paedophilia in literature, and perhaps merge contents and redirect to Pedophilia#In literature, television and film. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SilkTork's excellent exposition above. He made it as a comment rather than as a specific suggestion to Keep, but it's pretty clear that's his intent. The subject is pretty clearly notable, and the subject is unquestionably controversial, which pretty much assures us of 20 straight No Consensus challenges if we all stick around long enough. Fix what needs to be fixed (specifying the inclusion criteria and requiring sourcing) and move along... Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep yes it conflates several KINDS of sexual relationship between children and adults into one list. But attempting to draw distinctions would be original research. This is a notable topic, if controversial. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete i agree with Roscelese, plus pages about pedophiles are awful.~~ Big Skeleton (Big Skeleton —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

~~delete - Listed many times in order to be deleted, it's clear that most people consider this list to be of little use.~~ Juan Aubrie (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete because i agree with Several Times above.~~ Gomi Reseau (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there's not much to be fixed or salvaged. The community has considered, sometime in the past, other similar pages ("list of X portraying relations with adults and children") to be unfit to be included in an encyclopedia. Johnny the Rebel (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the topic has received "significant-enough attention by the world at large", as is shown by the Library of Congress categories in the references. Unscintillating (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is irrelevant for any respectable encyclopedia that deserves to be called as such. Man of the Middle Eastern Conflict (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The following three participants in this AFD have been Confirmed as sock puppets of each other and of an indefinitely blocked user (and hence have been blocked accordingly):

Juan Aubrie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Big Skeleton (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Johnny the Rebel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 07:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...also

Confirmed and blocked is Gomi Reseau (talk · contribs), who exhibits the same MO and everything. –MuZemike 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the liberty of striking the comments of blocked socks above. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. -c c 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the list is highly problematic in that it arbitrarily conflates a variety of types of relationships and historical cultural standards, resulting in a list that is at best a conglomeration of unrelated stuff (tantamount to List of books containing characters with red hair), and at worst quite misleading in suggesting that all of the depicted relationships are immoral or illegitimate. There's room for an article (or list) on sexual exploitation of minors in fiction, but this is not that article. If this were TV Tropes, I'd call it People Sit On Chairs. Dcoetzee 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this for a third week, because we need to get a little deeper discussion, without the disruptive sockpuppetry. This AFD is now semi-protected. Courcelles 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; SilkTork's excellent comment was given as a reason to support above, but I'm going to take the opposite tack; it shows that what constitutes adulthood varies too much over culture and history, and given the hypercharged atmosphere as relates to such relationships in our society, it opens up too many cans of worms for an article that is close to being an indiscriminate list anyway. Kansan (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't think that "hypercharged atmosphere" should be taken into the account when making the decisions on whether to delete an article or not. That would cause articles on most political, religious, environmental, etc. topics to be deleted. Beta M (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should never be the overriding or even a major factor - you are right in that. I only mention it here as any claim to notability would be extremely weak as to make a "keep" stance tenuous, and it simply constitutes a factor as to why I do not feel the status quo should receive the benefit of the doubt. Kansan (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Basically per Dcoetzee. Unlike Carrite, I'd also say SilkTork's comment if anything leans toward merge if not delete. There's a lot of issues with this article that can't be resolved without basically starting again with a better defined focus. sonia♫ 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well referenced list which deserves its place on Wikipedia. While it may appear that a category can serve a better purpose, it may distract the reader of the article if this is the only category (thus giving it undue weight) and also would be impossible to do with the books for which there are no articles. Beta M (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space pending a split. While it is clear that there are some notable topics in this area, and Silk Tork's comments outline how one or more clearly defined lists would be encyclopaedic this list is just too vague to be useful in the main space. Once it has been agreed what the scope of the new list(s) will be, then entries here can be moved if they meet the inclusion criteria. It can then be deleted, Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability problems. The earth is not flat. Maybe there are a lot of so-called relationships of this type, but only a microscopic segment of society openly celebrate it. -BE TA 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bentheadvocate. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AS I've repeatedly argued on the article talk page, inclusion on this list can be based on nothing but WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability problems and vagueness. Minor under whose law and what definition? Does it extend back into ancient times before it was distinguished the way it is now? Why? Seems open to original research and endless bickering. Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge, not to create articles where we figure it out by ourselves. Dzlife (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge" half the articles would disappear if we apply this rule. And of course what is 'settled'? I agree that as the article stands now there are issues. The main one is that the title is a bit confusing, but that is because people keep insisting on moving it from more reasonable to the less so titles. Beta M (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the basis of my !vote, looking at the references on the article shows:

Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child molesters-Fiction
National Library of Canada Cataloging in Publications Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Juvenile fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexual abuse victims-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Adult child sexual abuse victims-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Abuse-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Pedophilia-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Molesters-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse by teachers-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexually abused children-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Incest-Fiction

None of these subject headings cover the title of this article. I conclude that the world at large does not consider this topic notable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that Library of Congress does not classify books by the title of the article doesn't make it non-notable. I am sure there is no "Subject Heading: Goose Harbour Lake", however, there may be something in the library of congress which deals with that lake. In fact the fact that there are so many books in the LoC probably shows the exact opposite of your irrational conclusion. Beta M (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my limited knowledge of logic...I agree that the process of induction is not a form of proof, and that I have not proven that the topic is non-notable. However, I have induced that the topic is non-notable. Claiming that this conclusion is "irrational", without evidence, seems to be a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all you've done is shown that the Library of Congress (one of many classification schemes) doesn't use this title to group works of fiction. It doesn't show, prove or induce anything about the topic at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also showing that the topic is not referenced by the sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are showing the title isn't. The inclusion criteria are apparently "any of {1, 2, 3}" where 1, 2 and 3 are the subject headings you note above. When we have a grouping of notable topics we have to determine whether the grouping is appropriate or not, but even if it isn't it doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. In this case, I don't think the grouping is appropriate because it's too loose, however this is because it's too difficult to determine what is and isn't included. It is not shown by your list. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical depressions

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

This article is incomplete and is an orphan. It gives a list of non-notable storms, TD's occur all the time. Wikipedia is not a directory last time I checked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I copied and pasted the article to my userspace.--12george1 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is against Wikipedia rules; see WP:Cut-and-paste moves. I have deleted the page; if this AFD closes as "Delete", let me know, and I will move the article to your user space. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can move it to my userspace. Move it to the page that you deleted.--12george1 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article may be useful to some. There is no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The list is impossible to finish. There are thousands of tropical depressions across the world, and keeping them all in one article is hardly encyclopediac. Last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a "list or repository of loosely associated topics", nor "an indiscriminate collection of information". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, cohesive topic that isn't indiscriminate. If it limits itself to storms for which V is met, it will be incomplete, which is fine: we don't/can't cover things for which we don't have documentation, so holding that against the list article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic would certainly be indiscriminate if it was even halfway complete. The article is a completely unfinished list spanning a short time period. Technically it should refer to every single tropical cyclone that had its impetus as a tropical depression. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's impossible to maintain anything like a good list of something so numerous. Better handled as a category. -- 202.124.72.254 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' would be impossible to maintain and complete, in the first place. Wikipedia is not a directory, as said by Yellow Evan. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 15:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': There's no real use for this article or purpose to this article. Again, per above, it fails WP:DIRECTORY. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate; akin to List of thunderstorms. Juliancolton (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Any editor is free to write a new sourced article and I will be glad to userfy or incubate this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuhiro Matsunaga

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

Another article I've had on my watchlist that has GNG problems plus only one (circumstantial) reference. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, WP:NSPORTS or WP:ENTERTAINER. Raymie (t • c) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Notable Japanese independent wrestler. Kris (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of his notability? Our notability guidelines call for multiple sources presenting non-trival coverage of the subject and since there is so far only one reference according to standards the subject is not yet proven to be notability. Obviously there is a difference between subject not being notable and simple being not well sourced so finding extra references would be the best way to demostrate this person does in fact meet the notability guidelines. --76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One EP

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the artist is well known, and particularly notable within their musical scene, and as such official releases are noteworthy - 7PusaAJ (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines. Roodog2k (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete release exists, but no evidence a criterion of WP:NALBUMS is met. Hekerui (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely lacking in secondary sources. No criterion of WP:NALBUMS is met; works by notable artists are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 01:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like Kicking Jesus

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines.Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Was reviewed by reliable source, released by notable band. Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Allmusic review. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The World at War#Episodes. -- Lear's Fool 12:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distant War

Distant_War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete Its a duplicate of a previous article , and you can find all the information at World at War Goldblooded (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The World at War. No evidence that this particular episode of that series has notability independent from the series. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World at War. Failing redirect, merge. No sources. Apparent original research and badly formed right now. Series won an award and was nominated for two other majors, so series is notable appropriate target. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Rage 19

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

only gets coverage in MMA [7]. lacks third party coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. having notable fighters does not mean automatic notability. also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage of events promoted by a second tier MMA organization. Astudent0 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Only hits on these events are result listings (same as the articles themselves), promotional pages on DVDs of the event and forum postings. Little to no coverage of the actual event. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNSOURCED. Sherdog is a fine source, but all these linked articles are merely WP:ROUTINE sports coverage, and don't demonstrate any satisfaction of WP:EVENT. Possibly merge to Cage Rage Championships. Even though many may be WP:VERIFIABLE, not every sports event is notable. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Maldives relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relationship is merely recognition. no significant trade, no agreements, no state visits. no significant coverage of a real bilateral relationshop [8]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a cursory search of the relations reveals that the Maldives foreign minister visited Israel in May and signed multiple trade agreements and Israel was the 3rd state to recognize the Maldives independence 36 years ago. I see many reasons why these relations are notable and the article simply needs to be expanded.--TM 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TM. Marokwitz (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors published by Persephone Books

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

Non-encyclopedic; a mere catalog/list of authors who have nothing in common besides having been published or reprinted by one publisher, violative of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. There is nothing of value here for us; a mere listing, if it were necessary at all, would find a more natural place at the article on this particular publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article on the company itself is very marginal. Better to have a link there to their website where the authors can be listed, and kept up to date without WP editors bothering with it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete Although currently a delete may be in order, but if there is any reason why the list maintained by the company may be less useful than one published on Wikipedia, than please consider this a vote to Keep. Beta M (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely hate, and dont understand, publisher articles which list the authors published, or record label articles which list musicians. unless we have a source showing the author has an EXCLUSIVE publishing relationship, or has been written about as a, or the, major publisher for an author, listing authors is pure puffery. list the TITLES published, not the authors. this is especially true for a publisher like persephone, which apparently does reprints of earlier works. I can publish shakespeare. does that make me notable? no.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ADVERT This is nothing more than puffery for the publisher. I wonder how it survived being speedied. Roger (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloomsbury has a page exactly the same as this List of authors published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has thus far escaped deletion. The idea behind the list was so that people wishing to create articles for those authors not currently listed would not only have a jumping off point from which to do so, but also be able to find the Wikipedia articles for these authors listed in one place. In any case, very few of Persephone's books are out of copyright since an author has to have died before 1941 in order for it to be out of copyright, so it is hardly the same as republishing Shakespeare. I would have no problem with creating a list with the titles instead, though it seemed simpler and clearer to list the authors alone since many of them have acceptable Wikipedia pages where the titles themselves do not.LambsC (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - you've combined two non-valid arguments here: WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I find neither persuasive, unsurprisingly. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No prizes for guessing which article beginning with "List of authors published by..." is going to face "trial by AFD" next. Roger (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those 'intersection' type lists where the separate topics (in this case the publisher and the authors) may have received coverage, but not in context of each other. If reliable sources do not consider this a notable intersection then neither should we. Polequant (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in Performance.

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Recommending either outright deletion, or merging content with American Shakespeare Center. Considering the lack of references, outright deletion is probably the wiser of the two at this point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge I found some usable sources[9][10], but given the existence American Shakespeare Center article and the fact that most articles on the program also reference the center, I think it makes more sense to merge. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this material ito the American Shakespeare Center makes sense, but the current page should either redirect to Shakespeare in performance, or be a disambiguation between the Center and the performance page. I had expected to find a dissertation here on how Shakespeare is performed, given the title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm unable to find evidence of notability that satisfies WP:ORG#Primary_criteria. All sources regarding this program seem to be highly local media and references to be based on press releases. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should probably have been speedy deleted under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It is an article about a single course offered by a single college. No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (as required by WP:N). No attempt is made to establish a real-world context or perspective outside the realm of promotional material, and neither is there likely to be any. I have no objections to mentioning this in another article if its deemed appropriate, but that should not affect or even slow down the deletion of this article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Blue

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

No evidence of notability, just passing mentions and primary sources, fails WP:COMPANY Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks notable to me. It belongs to the mighty Barclays, who's about to sell it for over a billion dollars. The Financial Times has mentioned it in Jan., Feb., and June of this year. Being quoted in FT as a financial expert means something. This from AFP makes Global Blue sound very notable:

Duty-free specialist says Chinese tourist spending soars

(AFP) – 1 day ago

PARIS — Chinese travellers nearly doubled their spending on tax-free goods in 2010 to 1.3 billion euros ($1.84 billion), tax-free transaction specialist Global Blue said Tuesday.

The firm, owned by Barclays Private Equity and a leader in processing duty-free purchases, said in a statement that in the 12 months to March it handled 16.3 million traveller transactions, up 29 percent, and 5.7 million currency transactions, up 4.2 percent.

Seems to me that at the very least Global Blue should be tucked into our Barclays article. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding "tax free" to the search terms helps disambiguate, since "global" and "blue" are such common words online. This article from the New York Times, plus this article from the Daily Star in Lebanon, help establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, just added sale info under recent events. This article just needs more sources, and believe me they're out there. -BE TA 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a superabundance of sources: 16 cites and 23 external links. Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, half of them are primary sources from Global Blue itself. Most of the rest simply mention Global Blue in passing, regarding their expertise in finance and tax-free shopping markets. It needs more Tertiary sources reporting on Global Blue specifically. --BE TA 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nomination. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured by major travel guide. An article by another travel guide printed both by ABC News and USA Today. Another travel guide. Another. Another. Along with the quote in AFP and the mentions in FT, plus the value of the company, I'm convinced Global Blue is notable. It seems to be a niche business--a large, important, world-wide, notable one--that maybe a only small percentage but still large number of world travelers is aware of. It seems and financial and travel advisors are fully aware of it. Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand what substantial coverage means - one line mentions in travel guides do not count. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do not understand; any tutoring on my talk page would be welcome. My interpretation of Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material means that when FT quotes Global Blue as an authority, it gives it notability. My interpretation of The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources means mention in every international guide I've consulted "adds up" to sigcov. In other words, just one wouldn't hack it, but half a dozen do. Also, the article here is entirely about Global Blue.

Meanwhile, may I suggest to the editor who created the Global Blue article that s/he insert it into the one on Barclays, where its inclusion would not be debated. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules (talk • contribs) 03:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Newberry

The individual is not notable and the entire article does nothing but promote the individual's business interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 2011/07/08 21:14:00

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I thought this might meet criteria 3 or 4c of WP:AUTHOR, since his books are his main claim to notability, but I've been unable to find any professional reviews. Yunshui (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Weak Delete Assertion - I don't know what "weak delete" means. Hoewver, I'm open to being wrong but I'm wondering how my delete request can be "weak" (if that's what the person above meant) when Wikipedia's notability requirements necessitate the following, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP GNG) Since no one has found any such references it would appear that the subject cannot be declared "notable" at this time.

Plus, even if Tommy Newberry does meet the notability guidelines, the article about him doesn't meet the "biography" guidelines. It doesn't have any info about the gentleman's birthday, educational background, or professional experience. All it contains is a 2-sentence endorsement that looks like it came off the back of one of his books. Presumably someone could have added more relevant info if his/her agenda was something other than marketing Tommy Newberry's material.

These article should be deleted because it's clearly an advertisement rather an effort to create a real article AND no one has demonstrated that the subject is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find any major reviews of Newberry's book, and limited news coverage apart from one or two articles like this, where he is listed as one of a few Tea Party speakers. -- Lear's Fool 07:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing in the article to indicate notability. asnac (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable sources, none which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Kourdakis and Apostolopoulos, delete Moisiadis. There is no disagreement about deleting Moisiadis. There does seem to be consensus that playing in the Football League 2 would satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, and Jogurney's demonstrate that. Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Kourdakis

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the criteria stated above. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all three clearly fail WP:GNG. Kourdakis and Moisiadis both clearly fail WP:NSPORT as they have never played in a fully pro league. If the content of the Alexis Apostolopoulos is accurate, then he has played in a fully pro league (Gamma Ethniki) and would meet WP:NSPORT. However, I cannot verify that this is the case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexis Apostolopoulos. I think that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he has made a number of international appearances in the Greek National Team for the Under-21 and Under-19 squads. Those are not junior squads. In any case, he easily meets the general notability standards in WP:NSPORT. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that what a player achieves at youth level doesn't make them notable. If he has played in Gamma Ethniki then provide some reliable references to back it up. If it can't be verified then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lazaros Moisiadis: Lazaros clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as he never played for a senior club. However, both Panagiotis Kourdakis and Alexis Apostolopoulos have signed for Football League 2 clubs, something easily verifiable, which covers WP:NSPORT. Unfortunately, there is a lack of reliable statistics around Football League 2, so it will be kind of hard to verify whether they actually played or not, and i'm not sure at all about the appearances and goals mentioned in their articles. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to verify that Kourdakis (ΚΟΥΡΔΑΚΗΣ, ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ) played in Football League 2 (http://www.epae.org/match.fds?categ=3&dior_code=117&cal_day=34&game=1&group=2&type=1&pagecode=01.03&langid=1). Jogurney (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And equally easy to verify that Apostolopoulos (ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ) played in Football League 2 (http://www.epae.org/match.fds?categ=3&dior_code=117&cal_day=1&game=7&group=2&type=1&pagecode=01.03&langid=1). Jogurney (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Kourdakis and Apostolopoulos since the articles satisfy NSPORTS. Delete Moisiadis since the article fails GNG and NSPORTS. I'm not sure the first two articles will pass GNG, but given the amount of Greek-language coverage of even the third level of Greek football, I suspect they can be brought up to that level. Jogurney (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may have been a bad idea to roll these AFDs together, as the comments above suggest. A no consensus close with an invitation to AFD the articles separately may be necessary. causa sui (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TENSIXTIES

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

Fails WP:BAND CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources cited are either blogs or self-promotion or press-release oriented. Not sufficient independent coverage. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bortz

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

being a member of Cincinnati City Council since 2005 does not seem to confer notability? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--actually, it does. See WP:POLITICIAN #2, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Bortz easily passes this test--do a google news search on "Chris Bortz Cincinnati" and there are plenty of reliable sources. I'll try to add some references now, but even without them, this calls for a cleanup tag, not a deletion. Meelar (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I've significantly updated the article and added several citations to reliable sources. Meelar (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sources are showing in the piece. The subject's minor party ties make him rather more noteworthy than your run of the mill city councilor, but that's icing on a big-enough cake. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to make a valid argument for deletion under WP:POLITICIAN, one would have to assert that Cincinatti is not a "major metropolitan city". It seems to me that this is a tough argument to make. I suggest that the nominator, who I am sure was acting in good faith, read the relevant and applicable notability guidelines before making further AfD nominations. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:POLITICIAN I didn't think he qualified as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." but I'm happy for it to remain if he qualifies under "major metropolitan city" Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Voyager640 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz Woods

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore doesn't comply with notability requirements, or possibly even a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A modern day Hendrix. An inspiration to young aspiring guitarists, and a true professional. WP:BARFBAG. If this unsourced extravaganza is factual, and it's unsourced, so who knows, this is a session musician with a fairly long resumé. That still falls short of our notability standards... Carrite (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One would assume that a musician who is called "a modern day Hendix" in a Wikipedia article would be discussed in depth in many reliable sources. In this particular case, one would be wrong to make such an assumption. This particular Hendrix wannabe is a "modern day non-notable". Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, written more like a promotional piece. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article is clearly used as a mean just for promotion only. I've also nominated a picture for deletion on Commons. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was based upon lack of signifigant coverage required by the general notability guideline. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Grimley

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unnotable. Huh direction (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N.--Xyz or die (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "fails to advance an argument for deletion". I don't think this should have been relisted under (1) speedy keep criteria criteria #1, (2) WP:BURO (extending an AfD discussion because we "have to"), plus, (3) the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence. The recent comment added after the relisting likewise cannot be reduced by the force of reason, so is not a !vote. I'm no fan of articles without references meanwhile I see 47,000 Google hits—at least the nominator should fully prepare the discussion if the rest of us must spend our time looking at the issues, and the admins have a work load added, please. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your frustration about the nomination, a speedy keep per your argument is no longer valid as soon as the first real delete !votes come in. As such, you should probably give a reason concerning the notability of this article if you want your !vote to count for anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several good news sources online, some of which are reliable sources, so the sourcing could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion, and in fact, is a reason to keep the article. Rescue it. FWIW, I don't see the harm in a re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that I see with those sources is that, although a bunch are certainly reliable, they don't really come close to significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the call for speedy keep, (1) nominator advanced an argument for deletion, "Still unnotable", weak argument by itself (but supported by the first afd) but talks to the basic justification of inclusion. (2) I can't see how WP:BURO justifys a speedy keep. If anything the lack of anyone objecting to a proposed deletion implies support, not opposition to deleteion. (3) "the community has confirmed their lack of interest with their silence." Yes, their lack of interest in maintaining this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing no coverage beyond 'mere mentions'. Certainly that's all the seems to be cited in the article, and in the News-WP:GOOGLEHITS that Bearian is citing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search engines found several people with same name, none of which is notable.--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eliana Benador. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benador Associates

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

This now-defunct organization does not appear in itself to have either staying power or lasting notability. Any information covered here that actually is notable could easily be folded into Eliana Benador. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eliana Benador whose article I advocated keeping when it was up for AfD in March, 2011. Benador Associates was indistinguishable from Eliana Benadaor when it existed, so there is no need for a separate article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article looks like it can be expanded, the list of speakers is quite large, and i believe that sufficient research would provide enough results to make it into a good article. Beta M (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Per nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Trial by Jury characters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creevedonnell Cricket Club}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair (3rd nomination)}}