Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miami33139 (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 8 August 2010 (Adding AfD for TimeSheet. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 7 August 9 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The rationales for keeping the article are not valid (time of nomination, future notability, usefulness). —fetch·comms 01:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimeSheet

TimeSheet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new article does not show any reference showing notability. It is written by single author with no contribution outside of writing about this software. This is an advertisement. Miami33139 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Miami33139 managed to nominate the article for deletion 33 minutes after user Onnop (talk · contribs), a new user, finished creating it (and less than an hour after Onnop started the article). That seems extremely premature to me.
    Lifehacker.com, a notable website, has published an article about TimeSheet, which I think goes some way to establishing notability.
    The article does not read like advertisement: it briefly (too briefly!) describes the product, then explains its most notable feature: that it automagically decides which project a user is working on from the user's activity.
    Let's give the article at least a couple of months, then perhaps take another look at it. Cheers, CWC 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the way we work. References first. We write from references. We do not leave non-notable and non-reference material laying around for a few months just because. Writing new article without notability and without references should be speedy delete criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should change the way you work when that way loses value for the people using these pages to seek information. TheRonWhite
      • References first? That may be the ideal but it is rarely the practice, and we do not (and should not) delete articles just for being less than ideal. Many valuable articles started as poorly referenced stubs.
        More importantly, Miami's argument is irrelevant: the article did have a reference! Unfortunately, it was in the "External links" section (exactly the sort of mistake for which we should not penalize new editors). I've just added it to the article as a proper reference.
        CWC 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay the question for a few days AFDing/SDing a newbie user's first article should be consider a form of BITING. Lets give the new guy a chance to get his article up to WP standards.--*Kat* (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominating editor needs to review the procedures under WP:BEFORE, primarily as it relates to #10 on the list. This was an inappropriate nomination. The better choice would have been to tag the article to alert the new editor to the need for references. Cindamuse (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a very useful (possibly revolutionary) product that I expect we will hear quite a bit about in the years to come. Speaking as former remote employee, I can say with certaintly that this product is notable enough for an article.--*Kat* (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this does turn out to be a revolutionary product, I'm sure we'll see another article in the future, when it is. As for now, this is an advertisement for an obscure freeware product. Whether it is good, bad, or mediocre product is no matter, an ad is an ad is an ad... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly. An entirely unreferenced article about some minor office software that apparently keeps track of the time during which documents are viewed. Google News is not going to yield any relevant results as is, and adding the name of the publisher results in zero hits.[2] Promotional intent is obvious, both from the article itself and the tenor of some of the contents of this discussion. There is no policy that requires the passage of time before an article can be nominated for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course - I came across this program (and subsequently this discussion) while looking for software, preferably free, that would let me track my time for my employer. TimeSheet is one of the few programs I found that met my requirments. If the people wishing to kick it out because they consider it an advertisement were to have their way, they would accomplish only hiding from me, and others, information that may be valuable. I'd like the freedom to decide that myself. I'm a newbie, and I don't know your criteria for advertisements nor your prejudice against them--other than the fact, as we all know, that they can be untruthful and irritating. But often ads can be a valuable source of information. Don't kill the message because you don't like the messenger.TheRonWhite— TheRonWhite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note - I have added some references, concerning the related methodology of Getting_Things_Done and articles on the internet. Onnop (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just edited the article some more, adding the lifehacker.com article as a proper reference, which may affect some of the !votes above. Cheers, CWC 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC) who hates spammy download websites and un-distinctive product names[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 are a lot of keep votes from new or inexperienced accounts that have failed to refute policy based delete votes that argue that what coverage exists is not substantial Spartaz Humbug! 04:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press Play on Tape

Press Play on Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 and contested. Asserted to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I don't think that wikipedia administrators count as reliable sources. As for other sources indicating that the criteria for WP:BAND have been met, I can't see them. Can you supply a few please? Until then, delete andy (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I run that google search but try to filter out wikipedia and non-reliable sources, I get less than 500 hits, none of which seem to me to help show notability per WP:BAND - see here. andy (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, if you do a correct search you'll see that your search lacks something. I get around 19,000 hits. TheoEngell (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Try working your way through to the last page of hits - there are far fewer than 500 hits, not 19,000. This is a well known google problem - it announces zillions of hits when there's actually only a handful. andy (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are using a tool, which you alreay know is faulty, to support your argumentation? That's a bit bold. As a computer scientist I need to tell you that it could be either part of the site that is faulty, or even both. TheoEngell (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, google is simply a route to sources, not a source in itself. But what the hell, let's not use google at all. Please supply reliable sources to support the notability claim, per WP:BAND. At the moment there's a single newspaper article and three other sources that fail WP:RS andy (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't talked about what Google is or is not, please stick to the issue. Usually when one refer to something it should be specific, that would be your main point. When you refer to WP:RS you should specify what exactly your point is; right now you could just refer to the main root of Wikipedia leaving no indication of what your point is. So, if your think WP:RS is relevant, point of what part of it. Beside that point, I find it very hard to see any WP:AGF in this speedy deletion case, from both your and SchuminWeb's side. Marking a page for speedy deletion just because it lacks whatever-you-think-it-lacks would make it perfectly legal to delete a lot of the Wikipedia content. Which is the opposite point of WP:AGF (top page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoEngell (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please don't impute lack of good faith. The nomination makes it very clear that whatever-it-lacks is listed explicitly at WP:BAND. If you want to show that the article should be kept all you have to do is provide reliable sources to prove notability. What's the problem? Just put in a couple of references that meet criteria at WP:BAND. For example, something to show that they have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" or have "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour" or have "released two or more albums on a major label" etc etc. There are 11 very explicit music-related criteria plus the usual general one of having had plenty of independent coverage from reliable sources. andy (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I cannot take your word, or anyone else's word, for it per WP:V. If one can't verify it, it doesn't belong, plain and simple. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a claim in the article, then I would agree. But I am (IMO) a trusted Wikipedia contributor unassociated with the band, adding a fact that I personally know. I am a reliable source for this fact. I think that should be enough for you to assume good faith, and take my word for it in the context of an afd debate. Thue | talk 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ - this is basic stuff from WP:RS. Firstly, the emphasis is on using published sources so other users can check for themselves. For example, the guidelines say "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves", which isn't precisely the case here but shows clearly how the guidelines are to be interpreted. Then at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources we can clearly see the requirement for editorial oversight and, ideally, having a structure in place where facts can be independently verified. We can take your opinion about this band, in good faith, merely as a statement about your opinion. andy (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly believe it is acceptable to violate WP:V and WP:OR, then you should resign your adminship. This is basic stuff, and it's hard to trust, as a community member and fellow admin, that you will do the right thing with the sysop tools if you refuse to follow basic policies about verifiability and original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should consider your own adminship. Deleting a page just because you assume that verifiablity isn't possible within a certain timeframe for a page or topic is only counter-productive and disrespectful for those who has contributed building the page. Maybe it does take some time to dig out verifiability, maybe editors do not spend the amount of time on wp that you do hence updates are not that often, maybe verifiability isn't even on the 'net as it is the case with this band. To be honest, to me it looks like you just want the page deleted because you know some rule that supports that. It's not like the world ends with that page being on wp for a period of time without verifiability. You comment about not having the time for undeleting the correct page surely supports your biased adolescence on this matter. There, i said it. TheoEngell (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comments such as this are not acceptable in wikipedia. Please confine yourself to the matter at issue and do not attack other editors. I have placed a warning on your talk page. andy (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete, on a second review, I can't take the views of a Wikipedia administrator as proof of verifiability. Whether you know something or not, if you can't verify it, it doesn't belong. Besides that, the "I'm an administrator, so you'll have to trust me on this one" attitude of some posts here is alarming. Esteffect (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final comment from me would be that performing as the headline act at a Copenhagen University event has been given as an assertion of notability. I'm not sure that headline a University event is a result to claim notability, if I'm honest - In the city I'm from, for example, headline acts often lack an article. Esteffect (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that headlining a university gig might be a weak claim to notability, and I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't really agree with your reasoning on this. With that kind of logic a bands notability is decided whether they're on WP or not, not if they headline a university gig. In other words, if you don't have a WP article you're not note worthy, and you can't get a WP article if you're not note worthy. That said, headlining a univesity gig is far from this bands biggest claim of notability, and I think the revised version shows this. MarcLager (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Hello and apologies if I violate any rules, it's not my intention; I'm not an editor but I use the Wikipedia very often, so I'd like to add my "user" point of view. I am not associated with the band. I'm the head of remix64.com (known as LMan there) for 10 years now, we are a webzine and a community around C64 remixing with hundreds of musicians and bands (who host their music at remix.kwed.org. If I were to pick one for notability, PRESS PLAY ON TAPE would be the first to come to mind; they are quite the "Stars" there. I kindly ask you people to reconsider the purpose of WP:BAND, namely that not every little musician claims his own page - this is definitely not the case here. In fact I was shocked to see the page removed. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE meets at least §7 of WP:BAND. I've personally seen them play in Birmingham and twice in London. They also meet §5; their works are published at [C64Audio] which is the most important indie label regarding music related to the C64. C64Audio represents notable C64 music legends like Rob_Hubbard or Martin_Galway and many others. Also check our news coverage over the years [PRESS PLAY ON TAPE related news. Apart from that all I'd also like to question SchuminWeb's motive for the deletion, from what I've heard there was a minor quarrel between him and the band about the capitalization of the band name, which then resulted in the deletion. As for my reliability, as I said I run remix64.com for 10 years, and I invite you to ask anyone at our community about my reliability. LMan (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. If anyone claims that a band, company, person, whatever is sufficiently notable to deserve their own encyclopedia article they must be able to prove it by giving references that other users can check for themselves. WP:BAND gives guidance about this. Despite lots of requests, none of this band's supporters have provided a single reference since this AfD debate started. If you claim that this band meets criterion #7 - "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - for example, please provide references so other users can check it for themselves (in the case of that particular criterion you may also have to show that their style is notable, and since they appear to be the only proponents of it, that might be a little circular...). andy (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply. But why don't the numerous references at remix64.com and the CD releases at c64Audio.com which I provided count for that? Everyone can check this for themselves? Also run a search for PRESS PLAY ON TAPE at remix.kwed.org, then hover the song titles to see how many times they were downloaded, "Out Run" for example counts about 59000 downloads, meaning 59000 people who are potentially interested in reading about them on the Wikipedia. Another popular reference that comes to mind was in the game Hitman: Blood Money, see (Screen shot). Frankly I don't see why there is so much resistance against leaving this article online. LMan (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is actually also a mention of PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in Kane_&_Lynch:_Dead_Men but as part of a cut-scene, look for a roll of tape thrown from Kane to Lynch. TheoEngell (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • First of all, the article contains exactly zero references to c64audio.com and remix64.com. I'm also not certain if these sources meet wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "in general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source"), but that's ultimately for the closing admin to decide. Meanwhile if you have references that you think meet wikipedia's criteria please add them to the article! Why is this difficult to understand?
  • Be easy on me, the workings of the wikipedia appear vast and a little confusing for a noob like me, so sorry if I'm missing the obvious. So what I'd have to do is put references to remix.kwed.org / c64audio.com / remix64.com into the footnotes that back up the information given in the article, right? LMan (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • At least the label's homepage / online shop (c64Audio.com) should validate as a reliable source, shouldn't it? PPOT has also been mentioned in various print media, I've asked the community to browse theirs and provide references. Hopefully this will help resolve the matter. LMan (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • An online shop certainly doesn't count as an independent source. I also think that the search results you've linked to on remix64.com don't count in the slightest as serious coverage - many are just mentions of gigs and lot of the results aren't even about the band at all. andy (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just an online shop, it's the label's homepage - why doesn't it validate #5 of WP:BAND? Why do the download stats of remix.kwed.org mean nothing to you regarding significance of the band? Above, someone unsigned remarked that there are "exactly zero references to c64audio.com and remix64.com", now that there are, you're telling me they're not valid. I was reading the Wikipedia:NEWBIES page to see if I was doing wrong; but the noob page in fact says that noobs should be bold and should be welcomed, that it's an important principle of the wikipedia. So as a noob, I'm asking you kindly to help me keep this page online, as for now I feel you're doing anything to make me fail: by labeling anything I do or say as not notable or reliable. I'm asking myself where is the famous good faith? LMan (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • There are many bands in the game tune genre so it's not that PPOT is the only one out there. But that is not up to the article to prove that even though they are referenced on the page, you have to find that our for yourself. Since PPOT on several occasions has been playing with both Rob Hubbard and Ben Daglish that should clearly indicate notability-also within the genre. The band has as well performed at Roskilde Festival (ref'd on page) and some of the largest venue in Denmark (articles about such concerts usually are deleted on the 'net after a period of time, but go check the pictures on the band's website---which I'm sure should not be included on the page just to claim notability and/or verifiability). So again, it's WP:AGF and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button. TheoEngell (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You're being rude again. Stop it please. Also, see WP:BURDEN: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Why not divert some of your energy into adding references? andy (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's undignified for a member of what you are claiming as such a notable and relevant band to be posting in a "but my band is important!" kind of way. I've actually heard "Bionic Commando" from your second album, and it wasn't a bad track, but I still don't think the coverage outside of said circles is large enough. Esteffect (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, with this sentence, "Apart from that all I'd also like to question SchuminWeb's motive for the deletion, from what I've heard there was a minor quarrel between him and the band about the capitalization of the band name, which then resulted in the deletion." you start your time on Wikipedia by not assuming good faith, and are incorrect since I was the person who corrected the band's name according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. As for WP:BAND, the band does not pass #5 because the c64Audio label is not a major label or one of the more important indie labels. As for #7, there is no reliable source to back up this assertion. CNN only has a trivial mention and remix64.com is not a reliable source, so this article should still be deleted. Aspects (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably I was mistaken about SchuminWeb. My apologies. Still: while c64Audio.com is a small label, it's the most important label regarding this specific style. The man behind it was after all important / relevant enough to be made a key witness in the Timbaland plagiarism controversy because of his expertise. As I said C64audio.com represents many notable c64 artists, known to millions. As someone who's been at the center of the scene we're talking about for 10 years, you should at least assume I know what I'm talking about, I'm not making this all up. And I claim that this style, as well as PPOT, is relevant, and important. Maybe not to you, maybe not to the mainstream, but to many, many people. Where is the threshold of interest for the Wikipedia? 100 people? 1000? A million? LMan (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment All right, go ahead and delete it then. You guys have your mind set, you think you're doing right, think you're improving wikipedia by removing information from this encyclopedia that might be of interest to tens of thousands of people. You're disregarding any hints or evidence of notability, even if it's from CNN. I'm not receiving answers on the good points I make, only on those you think you can disarm. You can also state that remix64.com is not a reliable source. While this may be true for the mainstream, it is *the* source for information around C64 remixing; you're asking for news coverage while you're ignoring me as an expert of the field. All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and not only in mine), because it indicates that niche information has no place on the Wikipedia, just because several editors think it lacks major coverage in the mainstream media. Relying only on this apperas a fatal error, because it will "mainstream" the Wikipedia as well, creating a mainstream dependance. I am 100% certain that this here is not what the set of rules you're relying on was made for. You're doing the wrong thing and you know it. If this deletion gets through, I actually regret the donations I've made to the project, because it's not what I thought it is: independent and free. LMan (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You know, you really should read WP:N someday. It very clearly explains why some articles are acceptable and some are not, even if they have lots of enthusiastic support. By the way, none of the participants in this debate will delete the article - an independent administrator will review the arguments and decide what to do (currently, probably deletion). And, as a last attempt to make the point, the article will not be deleted if you simply stop whingeing and add some proper references! andy (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rebuke TheoEngell for being rude for "So again, it's WP:AGF and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button" yet you're calling my arguments whingeing. I have read WP:N, and I'm trying to explain that our niche scene can not offer many mainstream references for verification, only indie references. In this case, the source is the band itself or people close to it, and I'm offering my expertise, c64Audio.com, Remix64.com and remix.kwed.org to back up the notability of the information. The Verifiability and Notability is all there, if you'd want to see it. Yet you don't; you're not moving your POV an inch. You're not trying to help. You're not even showing a little faith. Rather you're calling me a whinger. Thanks. LMan (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The Oxford American Dictionary says:
whinge |(h)winj| Brit., informal
verb ( whingeing ) [ intrans. ]
complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way : stop whingeing and get on with it!
"Mainstream" references aren't essential - WP:N makes that clear. What is essential is substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent sources. WP:BAND specifically excludes "works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings...", and that pretty much covers what's in the references you've provided so far. A few trivial mentions on a single website comes nowhere near meeting these criteria. If you're saying that the only way that an independent reader of the article can be satisfied that this is a notable band is to take the word of some of the band's supporters then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far. andy (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could reply by quoting the harmless dictionary entries for words like "adolescent", "Kafka" and "Twinkle", which you found so offending that you posted a warning. But there's no point. You are not really discussing. You're defending your position, no matter what; justifying everything with paragraphs and quotes, but completely lacking common sense. What you label as "perfectly clear" is after all only your interpretation of the guidelines (look that up in the dictionary). As I said I'm not merely a supporter of the band, I am considered a resprected representative of that whole style of music. Which you happily ignore. What makes you so sure your interpretation of the guidelines is right? LMan (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As a respected representative of the style you're no doubt aware of respected independent publications where it, and this band, have been discussed. You know, reviews, awards, that sort of thing. How about sharing them with us? andy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that from the start this article was not sufficiently verifiable, but in its edited state, as it stands now, I would say it's verified. I think a previous speaker tried to trivialize the CNN mention, but how many indie bands, no matter how briefly, are mentioned in a CNN article? You can quote paragraphs all you want, but in the end, in this case, it all seems to come down to petty personal opinions. I thought Wikipedia was beyond that. I think this is a keeper. MarcLager (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Here's the problem: Notability requires significant coverage, like a whole article about the topic. A mere mention does not help to establish notability, no matter who it comes from. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's where I claim personal opinions come into play. Being featured on national TV, getting mentioned (if not featured exclusively) in several publications, in several different countries, should and could be significant coverage. We can't demand the same kind of broad mainstream coverage when dealing with a niched, underground phenomenon - which, might I add, would be in line with one of Wikipedias five pillas; "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Thus, the demand for mainstream coverage should be bendable when it comes to covering non-mainstream topics. MarcLager (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I would like to know what kind of (indirect) notability it gives when CNN calls an indie band on the phone several times to do an interview? TheoEngell (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Improved article /end state band legitimacy for Wikipedia article is acceptable. The debate over the capitalization was lost when put up against the hard evidence of what actually appears in all caps on a Commodore 64 screen - the recognizable message PRESS PLAY ON TAPE, and the debate apparently sunk into a personal disagreement after that (otherwise, speedy deletion would have been the topic of debate, not capitalization). Agree with previous opinion, this is not what Wikipedia is about. As the owner of a longstanding Commodore 64 blog and a podcast with thousands of downloads (C64 Walkabout) and someone who is only tangentially into the "remix scene" I want to throw my 2 cents in that this band is well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community. Michitakem (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the name of the article should be "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE". --ElfQrin (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reason to keep the page? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't find any reliable third-party sources to impart notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's an off-wikipedia discussion here which looks rather like canvassing. From the comment at the bottom of the third page I have an idea that the forum is actually run by user:TheoEngell, although the difference in server clocks makes it hard to be certain. At any rate it's clearly run by one of the major spa contributors to this debate. Some of the forum comments are constructive and focussed on providing proper sources for the article but overall the intention is clearly to subvert this debate. andy (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first rule of Wikipedia is you do not talk about Wikipedia"? C'mon, this comment is simply preposterous. Your only interest is to see this article deleted, and you're lending no hand in trying to improve it or prove that this is in fact a notable band. I claim you've taken a personal interest in the deletion of this article, and will see it done by any means possible. Had you spent the same amount of energy in trying to find reliable sources for this article as you are trying to wreck it, you'd find it. I don't know how I'd go about reporting you to a "hight authority" on this, and I don't intend to find out either because frankly this is quote tiresome, but you, sir are clearly out of line here. MarcLager (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Canvassing?! This forum, for your info, is run be me and a couple of other non PPOT people. There have been some quick-tempered comments, yes, but you can track back that I'm calling people to help the case by providing better references and information; I even PMed some of the participants not to hurt the case by inapropriate measures. So far there has been no mass-posting, no campaigning, votestacking or secrecy. We're looking for help to save the article, that's all. Andy, would you stop being so destructive, please? LMan (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — Lkasjd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • In the midst of all the verbiage on this page I hadn't noticed your earlier note that you ran the forum and website. I've struck my comment about this. However the point about canvassing stands. For example "Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)". IMHO (and I might be wrong) asking supporters to help dig out reliable sources is fine, but many of the destructive comments which encourage editors to take a particular POV isn't a proper way to conduct what should be an open, neutral debate focussed on whether wikipedia's guidelines are met. The negative language used throughout this debate helps make my point. andy (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they can't. This debate will be closed by an independent administrator - once he's finished laughing and has told all his friends about it! Seriously though, there are various ways of complaining about the actions of us non-believers if you want to. You could start by reading about AFD etiquette at WP:AFDEQ and WP:EQ and then if you think we're behaving inappropriately you could consider various forms of Dispute Resolution or maybe even asking for administrator intervention via WP:ANI. andy (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to rely on google translations, but it seems to me that #6 is about just a single track and a quick chat. In any case, criterion 12 is more appropriate and I'm not sure if these references apply. Can you clarify the nature and depth of the coverage? andy (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the show on TV2 (Danish national television), is 7 minutes of length and is an interview and a performance of one song. The story is more or less to explore the fascination that makes these guys play Commodore 64 music. The show on "Harddisken" on DR (Danish national radio) is a one hour long program that focus on technology and on its impact on our every day lives. In this episode Press Play On Tape, plays the part of a house band, and performs 4 songs during the show as well as being interviewed. The 8 Bit Philosophy documentary, tells about the remix scene that has formed around the music from the Commodore 64 and Amiga. As a prominent member of this scene Press Play On Tape is mentioned. This documentary has been aired on German television. The show on DR could count as a week number 12 criterion, and the other two I still think counts as number one criterion. Both of them are made by reliable non C64 scene parties that want to tell the "normal" people about, what is going on here. The same can be said for the CNN reference or the references to Danish newspapers (Computerworld is the businessmans source of IT news in Denmark, and Berlingske Tidende is one of the largest newspapers in Denmark). Then there is references to various game magazines that quite obviously is for a different audience and is geeks talking to geeks. So there the focus is on nostalgia. All of this adds in my book to a clear fulfillment of criterion 1. None of these articles are merely press releases, but often based on two questions: "Why do do it?" and "Why do you think that you can get 720,000 views and 2300 comments on a YouTube video?" And may I add to that, that Eels: "Novocaine for the Soul" is on 300,000 views on youtube. Not that I am comparing Eels and Press Play on Tape, and I know YouTube hits don't count in here. I simply want to make it clear that this band isn't just known by that weird computer freak back at your school. If that should influence your view on this article. --Falbaek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 19:27 — Falbaek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Remix64, frequently quoted here as a viable source, is only a source notable in the Commodore 64 remix community. I would compare this to dubstep or 8-bit specialist sites, whereby they aren't a valid source for a wider notability (I'll refrain from using the term 'cruft'). It is also, per a previous post, ran by User:LMan, whom has argued heavily on this page (thus also probably WP:COI). Only one Wikipedia user active away from this article has commented in favour of the topic's notability with a reason; The various other keep votes are from canvassing (detailed above) and members of the band. Just to bring it all together. Esteffect (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, User:LMan and I cannot make it up for calling canvassing. Basically, it cannot be canvassing since we are 5 or 6 people trying to fight the anti-agf AfD here. If you call canvassing then the comment on User Talk:SchuminWeb clearyly indicates canvassing the other way arround. There are no other band members participating in this discussion because they don't care but I've informed them about what's going on. If you want to call my reaction, as a band member, against deletion of the page WP:COI, go ahead, I'm fine with that. It would be suitable to point out where I've done anything that might conflict, otherwise drop calling COI. My basic point here is, since your're so obsessed with everything should be in accord with reality, stop making accusations that obviously aren't true. TheoEngell (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'd also like to further comment that "well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community" is not a particularly good assertion of notability, as it's not a major community that's gained huge coverage as a whole, and doesn't assert the notability of a band within it. Most Wikia projects, indeed, are founded on the basis of notability within enthusiast circles without mainstream relevance. Esteffect (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on all of this, but name one music group or artist that has a Wikipedia article that is not written by a fan of the artist. So members of U2s fan club cannot write on the U2 article because that would be WP:COI, or do he have to be the founding member of the fan club? Or just in the board of the fan club? --Falbaek (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TheoEngell is a subject of the article, which makes his contributions to this AFD in conflict of interest. Anyone whom is the subject of an article would be deemed WP:COI, but fans are not - Your account is new, however, and appears to have been created to make a point on this AFD. To complete the U2 analogy, contributions by Bono or other members of U2, and parties such as their record company with a vested interest, would be in conflict of interest. Esteffect (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not really. WP:CANVASS says It is perfectly acceptable to publicize ongoing discussions among interested editors, provided that it is done to broaden participation in the discussion, rather than influence the outcome in a desired direction. First: The initial encouragement was to get people to give their concent about writing PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in caps. As you can see there was hardly any reaction to that, poor me. Second: This discussion is about AfD of Press Play on Tape. The reaction is towards your deletion of the page, not the capitalisation issue. Your bad luck was that it happened while a whole community was looking. There are two takes: Remove or Keep and you cannot expect a lot from the people in my backyard that you have woken up to go "Yay!" on your AfD. So, once again it's utterly fantastic to see how you guys can doctor up temporal interpretations of wp guidelines and rules to suit your case, when you know that you're dealing with noobs and you should extend your help instead to get the page into a shape where it actually could stay. So, for the fourth time: Assume some good faith, stop fighting for this as were your life depending on it, and stop popping out mutual exclusive interpretations of rules to suit your mood to be amused about how much they lack a clue on how this system works. TheoEngell (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SPA! — TheoEngell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That would be fine if the accounts were not new, and solely created to vote on this AFD. User:Falbaek's account was only created on August 12th, 2010, for example - That's different to informing existing editors. Furthermore, you're a member of this band, which does make your contributions heavily WP:COI and WP:ILIKEIT. Those are existing guidelines, and thus are not being "doctored up". There's no conspiracy theory here, and the new accounts that are here as a vote will probably be discarded by the closing administrator. I hope that explains the system a bit better. Esteffect (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so what, since you cannot come up with any reasons why my arguments are wrong, I can only believe that I am right, and that the article in the current state lives up to the criteria to be on Wikipedia. --Falbaek (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop for a moment here. WP:COI states clearly that If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. So, it is ok in some cases to contribute yourself, if you're subject. Please make a mental note to remember about this fact. Also note that it is ok to ref own material as long as there is plenty of third-party refs, so there can hardly be any issue. Nor does any of the indication of coi examples apply for any of my edits - any that mightdo so is clearly amistake. When you call WP:COI you should (if want to be a serious contributer) specify what you think is making my entries conflict with this neutrality. I have been encouraged to do several edits by supporters of this case to quote this and that which I haven't in order to remain neutral. So, fifth time, stop making these so-easy-to-do accusations about something you only have faint hunch about and haven't really investigated. Calling a kettle black does indeed demand a black kettle at the scene of the so-called crime. TheoEngell (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) SPA — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Firstly, your tone is not particularly gracious in this comment, asking me to specify if "I want to be a serious contributor" and referring to comments as a "faint hunch". Also, adding "SPA" after your comments looks like you're somewhat mocking the "single-purpose account" guidelines. Nonetheless, the references to WP:COI are not in reference to your article contributions, but to the case that you are making in this debate, in that your desire to see the article survive this AFD is a conflict of interest, as it of course in the best interests of a band member to not see the article deleted. Therefore, when you argue vehemently for the article, it is important that the closing administrator knows your relationship to the article's content. I hope that this helps to clear things up. Esteffect (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this may sound like a few of us just banging on about silly rules we made up a few minutes ago, but when you get back to basics this is an encyclopaedia. We didn't invent it, we don't own it, we don't have any control over it. All we can do is try to work within its rules (which we didn't invent and which are policed by lots of people other than ourselves). If the subject of this article fits within wikipedia's scope, that's fine. If not, then not. I think one way, you think the other. OK, let's see. But in any case there are a squillion other websites out there with other rules for inclusion so what does wikipedia matter? I think it's just an issue of pride that your band has a wikipedia article of its own. Well, big deal.
You are totally mistaken when you claim that we're making up the rules, and I am certain that you know it. Once again: wikipedia's rules were written over a long period of time by many people, and the outcome of this debate will be decided by a third party who is knowledgeable about those rules. I have already explained how to make a complaint so please, for goodness sake, just do it and stop whingeing! andy (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't endorse the claims that you are "whinging", as it is your right to contribute to an AFD debate, as can be said for others too. However, I would be interested to know as to how a new interpretation of conflict of interest and canvassing is being shown here. Either way, the AFD has runs its course, and I think that the arguments have been fully presented. Myself and other administrators whom have contributed to this AFD cannot close it, and a neutral party will judge the arguments on their merits or lack thereof. I personally anticipate either deletion or a relisting, based on User:Thue being the only established Wikipedian to have made an argument for the article's place. Esteffect (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All rule quarrel, spa-debating and canvassing accusations aside, has anyone bothered to look at the article in the past couple of days? Even if some editors seem to think we've only been stirring trouble, we've actually worked quite hard on improving the credibility of the article. Right now this debate is about the debate itself, and very little about the article. MarcLager (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.163.80 (talk) — MarcLager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • One fundemental flaw with this argument is that the quality of an article's writing does not guarantee its notability. I have seen excellent articles deleted in the past, just as awful, unformatted ones have been retained, as AFD is a case of notability and encyclopedic relevance above personal interest and quality of writing. Brief mentions in documentaries, and mentions on specialist websites do not constitute notability in my mind, and the same can be said for others; Others, of course, have disagreed on that point. The issue with some sources given is that they are not independent from the musician, or particularly reputable; An example of this is the website ran by User:Lman, whom has contributed to this debate following the earlier reported canvassing for votes. Very brief mentions on documentaries and news networks are also not particularly sufficient (and are, as termed in WP:MUSIC, 'trivial'), and as has been noted previously, many of the mentions are brief as examples of Commodore 64-based music and culture. I appreciate that, as band members and fans, you are keen for the article to remain, but the "Wikipedia guys" do have arguments which have been made, and when this debate is reviewed, both sides of the argument will be considered by an independent administrator. To sum up this somewhat long-winded reply, the case for deletion stems from a lack of notability under WP:MUSIC, and the case for keeping under Criterion 1 of that (or so it would seem). The disagreement stems from whether these sources are indeed non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable, which I personally do not think is the case. Esteffect (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if I'm understanding this correctly, in your opinion, references to interviews on national TV and radio, national and international newspapers (with interviews spanning several pages, I might add) and magazines from several countries, international media, as well as analysis in academic studies is not enough to claim notability? Because if you had indeed bothered to look at the article, you'd have noticed that very few of the trivial references you're refering to are left, or make up a marginal part of the reference list. MarcLager (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources that I have seen are representing the Commodore 64 community. For example, the CNN article is in fact a single paragraph where Theo (and I don't think arguing his own band's case so heavily has helped perceptions, by the way) talks about his band in an article entitled "What can you do with a Commodore 64?". The academic article mentions the band, but also notes that the video mentioned "premiered in a pub" and "gained attention in Commodore 64 forums", so I'm not sure how that helps to show heightened notability either. For me, therefore, this isn't significant coverage focused on the band. Computer game magazines and so on is a subjective case of notability, which is why we're here at AFD. You must remember that I originally voted weak keep, and then delete, so I'm not as rigorously against this band's notability as other editors - In fact, I even stated that I've heard their music before in one comment, and thought they are quite good. This still, however, does not change my opinion that I feel that the press mentions, no matter how widely obtained, are a little trivial and brief, often as a sub-text in articles on Commodore 64 and game music. The wider popularity seems to be lacking, for me, hence why I still see this as a failure of WP:MUSIC. That's all I can really argue, but I hope you understand my viewpoint. Esteffect (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand your point of view, but I also feel you're focusing on what you think is trivial, while ignoring the substantial - like a four-page-interview in a general PC magazine, or interviews in "normal" newspapers and national TV. Yes, there are references closely linked to the band, like their web site, but surely this can't be forbidden when mixed with credible, third-party references? Even when removing those closely linked to the band, there are still dozens of third-party references left. I'm guessing we'll never agree on this, though. :) MarcLager (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also get you point, and thanks for taking the time to actually write down some of the reasons why you think the references are not notable. I share the same opinion as User:MarcLager though, I would like the same argumentation on the references to "normal" newspapers and national TV. I think of Press Play On Tape as a niche band, that is very well known in their niche (Hence the many references to news mainly focussed on this niche), but the band has also appeared outside of the niche as the references to "normal" news sites states. So without the references to the computer magazines, remix64.com and c64audio.com it would be impossible to write the article. This doesn't claim notability but the references to national TV and normal newspapers do. --Falbaek (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far from the trivial mentions being deleted, the majority of the sources seem to be "trivial", self-references, unreliable, unverifiable or other. Seems to be a case of WP:MASK where millions of refs are used in hope of proving notability. They must think more refs = more likely to be kept. Machine translated Danish references also do not give me hope. How about listing here say seven or so of the best sources. If that isn't enough then the band is probably non-notable. Extensive meatpuppetry and rambling is great concern. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WP:MASK another page covering something that facilitates another unproven accusation. You demand hard evidence for notability and all you can give is that it seems to be a case of wp:mask. Have you read the article? Do you know what masking is, or why the seems? TheoEngell (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:COI and at least be open to the idea that you may not be the most neutral participant in this debate. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am most certain open to that possibility but think I'm doing fine. Please read the part above starting with "Stop for a moment". If you find an entry of mine that is violating WP:COI please point it out. And I really mean that. TheoEngell (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another question or note on how to point fingers, and why? How can it be that almost all in the delete party are working on assumptions that something may be X and therefore points fingers while screaming X manicly - while they demand extreme precision in what is handed in from others? "Perhaps you should be open to..." re-think your own phrase just a couple of times, thinking that maybe it's you. It's OK that mark an article for deletion without spending much time on investigating if it is the right thing to do. How can it be that a single person (or a few people) that have little or no knowledge about a topic wants to decide over it on wikipedia, setting their own preference (let it be typography, content wise, or any other) higher than a collection of people that actually enjoys that topic and even offers their time and knowledge? Is it that every page becomes a nail when you have the Twinkle delete hammer? If, tons of pages must be deleted this way because the deletor is ignorant about what he or she (as if) is doing. I could understand if you earned xp, got a +1 on your plate mail, but you don't in this world. So, what's the motive here? And it cannot be that you crave sleep and go to sleep each day even more happy after deleting a page or two. If, you should try some of the more exciting stuff out there; the rush is much more notable. I lack essense in all the nay sayers' outbursts, I see nothing but predispositions and uninvestigated accusations. Even while trying to assume some good faith, wherever it is. TheoEngell (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MASK clearly states that this can only be done by editors that know what is notable and what is not. Since every experienced Wikipedia editor above states that we (the people with a keep attitude) don't know what is notable, I think it is a funny rule to suddenly throw into the discussion. Then you want a list of references that is notable, both User:MarcLager and myself have already mentioned what we think is notable. So why didn't you join in one of those "threads"? "It is not about votes but about reaching consensus" I think I read somewhere on one of the many WP rules pages. --Falbaek (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: if your band was notable, perhaps you and your crew wouldn't need to come here and incessantly argue that it was. If your band was notable, somebody else (several people) would already have come along and noted so, and this debate would not be occuring. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pack

Ivan Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fighter clearly fails WP:MMANOT since he has not fought for a top tier MMA organization. He also hasn't had any notable opponents. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feltre School

Feltre School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nominated on behalf of IP: Non-notable private adult school. Fails GNG, as there's no indication of coverage besides one incidental mention in a local article about adult education. Prod contested without any improve to the article. User:69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Its website says "The Feltre School is a nonprofit private and independent school that provides returning adult students the opportunity to enrich their lives". It appears to be an adult-education establishment with no evidence of accreditation, and that is not something that Wikipedia consensus presumes to be notable. Therefore, WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and/or WP:LOCAL. It appears to fail those, unless someone can come up with additional major coverage. --Closeapple (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:ORG actually states: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I think the sources that have been added adequately satisfy that criterion. Perhaps you would consider examining them? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better: Weak Keep because of new Colista and Bertagnoli references (in article) being evidence of substantial coverage in WP:RS. (I can't get to Smoron page to see if it's a substantial treatment for notability; the others seem to be non-substantial for notability.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Hero (Ron Wasserman song)

American Hero (Ron Wasserman song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song, which has never been released on an album and has only gained prominence by being released via the Rock Band Network fails WP:NM entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Back (Ron Wasserman song)

Fight Back (Ron Wasserman song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song, which has never been released on an album and has only gained prominence by being released via the Rock Band Network fails WP:NM entirely. While it is referenced, one is to a fan forum where he posted the song in 2008, and the other three merely show that the song exists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhil Amani

Ruhil Amani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as a biography that did not assert the notability of the person, but I did not feel it met that criterion. There is at least some half-way plausible assertion of notability, and from a quick Google search it appears that at least some of it might be supportable with sources. I'm not really able to judge the reliability of the sources I can find, and I have no particular interest in this subject matter, so my own opinion here is neutral. Reyk YO! 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Did a bit of research. Seems Ruhil Amani is a established singer and actress, who has been active in Malaysia since 1988 and has 4 gold and 1 platinum album. If we keep, we need to find verifiable sources which satisfy WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. The article is stonkingly badly written. Its needs a complete rewrite, wikipfied and linked. scope_creep (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Ruhil will showcase hits from her chart-topping CDs" "The week ahead", Straits Times, 7 December 2003; "During her fifteen year career she has released eight albums, four each of gold and platinum." "Unplugged flavours", The Malay Mail, 2 September 2003; "The former child star who enjoyed the chartbusting mega-hit, Kawan," Ghani, Marina Abdul (27 November 2000), "Rooting for Ruhil", The Malay Mail; Farinordin, Faridul Anwar (29 March 2003), "Singer Ruhil marries Aussie musician", The Malay Mail; Ghani, Marina Abdul (24 October 2000), "Ruhil's makeover", The Malay Mail; Kadir, Zainal Alam (27 September 1999), "Ruhil to sing at Japanese festival", The New Straits Times; Waheed, Sajahan (25 August 1997), "Ruhil wants to be a star again", The New Straits Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Etsuyo Ota

Etsuyo Ota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow Public School

Lucknow Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources, nobody knows if any of this is true. They could for example have only 50 students and pretend to have 10000 so that their article is kept. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Donski

Aleksandar Donski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem I have with this subject is that I can't determine whether he is notable or not. The guy has written a lot of books, none of which I have heard of -- but this doesn't mean anything. None of them are cited in Wikipedia articles -- but, again, this doesn't mean anything. This is really a case where I have to rely on just how much I trust the judgment of my fellow Wikipedians. If this article has been the target of any OTRS tickets, maybe the best solution would be to delete it. But I suspect there are countless articles in the same state as this one: possibly undesirable articles which only an expert can determine whether they should be kept or deleted. And as Wikipedia's scope grows, the number of these problematic articles will increase. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as an author, His books are in almost no Worldcat libraries (That wouldn't be definitive if they were all in Macedonian, but it applies to his English ones also.) DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Jones

Neal Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep Not a star, certainly, but a longstanding actor with a respectable body of work. I have added referenced information that suggests that he is worthy of note. (And I apologize for not explaining why I contested the prod and for not mentioning my intention to improve the article. I only discovered that it was on the verge of deletion just after midnight my time, and making the article presentable-looking was all I had the time and energy for.)--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. The article does look a lot better but IMHO the guy still fails GNG and BIO. IMDB and IBDB aren't reliable sources and the linked reviews spend about 2 1/2 paragraphs on Jones. The award nomination really isn't enough either, although the film festival is probably sufficiently notable for an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue improvements. Rarely does a review of a play in its disection of plot and theme and staging spend more than a sentence or two on any particular player, so the occasional 2-1/2 paragraphs addressing an individual and praising his work in contextual relationship to the production itself specifically meets WP:GNG in being more than a trivial mention, even if not the main topic of the source material. And one might note, that while IMDB and IBDB are unsuitable for sourcing notability, they are usually okay for simple verifications of released works, just as are the works themselves. So I have no doubt that the individual's career meets the instructions at WP:ENT in his having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". All that is needed is some work and improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Casper Styles

Jack Casper Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's literally a hoax, more a vanity page, but it's clearly a no-brainer for delete. I would have put it up for CSD, but the page claims notability. I put it up for PROD, but the template was reverted. User:JackCasperStyles, the creator of the page, keeps deleting the template for this AfD as well, but does not appear interested in responding to requests to justify the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax in the sense that I don't think the kid has any relationship to the WWE aside from being a fan.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kww. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henry Croxall

Thomas Henry Croxall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • I am the author and I can't find other sources for TH Croxall that I can point to on the Internet. I've added an article about his translation of Johannes Climacus and his assessment of the book. I believe that Croxall is significant because he worked to bring Kierkegaard's writing to Christians. Many references used in your article about Soren Kierkegaard leave 1921-1959 completely out except for Heidegger and Sartre. Let's have more Swensen, Lowrie, and Croxall. User talk:11614soup 8:02, 25 July 2010 (CST)
  • Keep, though modestly so. The article is not so good--it's written like an essay, and its references are confused and confusing. I made a few minor edits and added a citation. There seems to be plenty of mention of Croxall's translation of some of K's works, and his Glimpses and Impressions is quite often referred to, though he doesn't get cited and discussed very often--typical for a translator, I imagine. So, I'm going to say keep, because I think that a. more can be found and b. the number of references to his work (even though the ones I looked at lack substantial discussion) indicate notability. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone has access to a bigger database than does my employer, they could pull up this citation, which suggests (from a Google Scholar search) that Croxall's work may have been relatively unique (well, in the sense of rare) for his time. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several other articles had material added to them recently by an IP editor using Jens Staubrand's recent Kierkegaard Bibliography (ISBN 978 87 92510 05 1) which would perhaps assist in extending and referencing this article on Croxall and his works. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – sgeureka t•c 06:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GG Bond

GG Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hodge (Jackass actress)

Stephanie Hodge (Jackass actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hangry

Hangry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Erica Morris

Erica Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 4

Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

The result was Keep 85.211.126.241 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Cottrez

Dominique Cottrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a sad and tragic case, and a sensational case, but it is material for a newspaper, not for an encyclopedia. It will no doubt be argued that it must be notable because it has been in all the papers, but that does not follow: the GNG itself says:

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

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

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

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

  • Comment on the face, it's a standard WP:NOTNEWS case - onetime event about lady who killed her 8 children, but the gravity of it makes it an edge case; or does it? Serial killers are fairly common, there really isn't any thing that unusual that I can see, I could be wrong though. Ryan Norton 08:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the problem of having newsworthy events written up as articles immediately. If we dont write it, it looks silly if its notable, and if we write it and its obviously a news cycle filler, it doesnt belong here and makes us look unprofessional. i get that. but she killed 8 of her own children. Hello? I think it is safe to say that there WILL be hundreds of news articles, many books, endless commentary, and her image in every book on serial killers/mass murderers starting within a year. Serial killers are NOT that common. its just that with 7 billion people, we have a larger number each year. even more uncommon are females, and more so than that, females who kill their child, and even more so, females who kill most or all of their children, and even more notable, such females with 8 or more children. I wish people would stop invoking "one event" as if being known only for one event means someone is not notable. would lee harvey oswald have had an article on WP in 1962? no, but his doings in 62 are sure notable now. She is notable for one event, but that one event is highly notable. we wont know how notable she is for other parts of her life until the biographers have written them. i would suggest a rename to something like Dominique Cottrez murders if people dont want her as the subject, but that may seem contrived.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment wasn't really a !vote either way; you have some good points. I was kind of trying to think of an alternative to keeping a pure bio article, but I don't see one; as you mention would be awkward to call it "Dominique Cottrez massacre" or something. At that point it is an editorial matter I suppose though... Ryan Norton 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as #Mercurywoodrose above, I get the difficulty of separating "ephemerally prominent" from "permanently noteworthy", and that that's not always easy without the perspective of time. But is there really much doubt about this one? Eight of her own children? The Fritzl article is under Fritzl case - how about Dominique Cottrez case? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above; I like HeartofaDog's suggestion for the pagename as well. Ryan Norton 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amel bouchoucha

Amel bouchoucha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Manchester

List of streets in Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

There's nothing clear about it at all. It violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:N, so hardly "bizarre" either. Aiken ♫ 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it listed every street in Manchester, it would violate WP:NOTDIR. It doesn't, and it doesn't. A list of significant streets, significant buildings etc is a perfectly acceptable use of the list format; replacing it with a category would show only those streets which already have articles, while the purpose of a list is also to show those which should have articles. There are many lists, up to and including FL-level lists, which include huge numbers of redlinks or currently unlinked entries, or which list only an arbitrarily-chosen subset of a much larger group—see List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, List of HIV-positive people, Listed buildings in Runcorn, List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove or List of snow events in Florida, for example. – iridescent 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who says a street is "significant"? It violates WP:OR and always will. Aiken ♫ 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm this makes no sense to me. If a street or road has an Article, that is able to survive the scrutiny of other editors, then consensus says "it is significant". Besides, we are not discussing the significance of each individual road Article. This discussion was about the List. If you wish to 'go down that road' please do so at Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense that we should have a list for streets. Streets, as I already explained, can be notable on their own. Manchester has many notable streets, as do most cities. However, streets in general are not notable. It is the exception, rather than the rule that they are noteworthy. Unlike, say, Grade I listed buildings, not every one is of importance to have an article of. One could argue that, if that is the case, we can list the streets regardless. But that would be violating WP:NOT. However, listing only a selection, even if they are only the "notable" ones would still violate WP:OR, because it is not up to Wikipedians to decide if something is notable - that is done by sources. Which brings me to the point: there are no sources that state Manchester's streets are notable, in general. As mentioned, listed buildings are notable. Monarchs are notable. Countries are notable. Lots of things are. But streets are not. As this is the case, a category will suffice. Otherwise, we are keeping a list of a non-notable concept (individual streets), that lack any kind of sources and is pure original research for which streets get included. Aiken ♫ 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you have given are all worthy of being a list, as the topics they represent are notable (a place, listed buildings, places of worship, etc). Streets are generally not notable - they are run-of-the-nill things, encountered every single day. The notable ones are individually notable and don't make any sense in an incomplete list, especially one where they have been handpicked, without any apparent criteria. The article is currently a handpicked selection, which we should not do - all notable examples should be included - and if every street was listed, it would be a vio of WP:NOTDIR. This list serves no purpose - it doesn't do what it says it does, and violates policies in order to do it. Aiken ♫ 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought along the same lines, and I don't believe a list is worth it. Aiken ♫ 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXPANDED There, that wasn't too difficult. I've started work on an expansion to this, adding a table, a few refs. Now this has more info than could possibly be gleaned from looking at a category. Lugnuts (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all poorly thought out. On the contrary, I give solid reasons why this article should not exist. You, on the other hand, have not shown how such a concept is notable (it isn't) and instead resorted to attacking the nomination, and give a wishywashy "other stuff exists, so it's all good" non-argument. When we keep non-notable collections of indiscriminate information, like lists of non-notable streets, we begin a slippery slope towards keeping lists of endless, pointless things about everything. What's next, List of walls in Manchester, List of trees in Manchester, List of atoms in Manchester? We are not a compendium of everything that ever existed. Streets, non-notable ones, are everyday things and do not need documenting on Wikipedia, unless they are a notable concept/idea. They are not. Aiken ♫ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I suggested that the List should survive because something else does. I suggested that it move to a more informative format, such as the ones I suggested. I acknowledge that every Article in WP must stand on their own individual merits, WP:N with Citations included. But how each of us Find that Article, may be different. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN is your friend. Lugnuts (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HOW is it "better covered" by a Cat? A Cat cannot make the link between the road and what Notable locations are on it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article were to be kept, Wikipedia could end up with a whole load of "List of streets in city/town/village" in the United Kingdom. It should be deleted, or at least renamed as "List of notable streets in Manchester".--HLE (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what's wrong with that? There are already other street list articles. The word "notable" shouldn't be used in an article title, as it's implied by being on WP in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already do, as a matter of fact 2 Articles. It's just that they are called Motorways on that side of the pond. see List of motorways in the United Kingdom & Lists of roads in the United Kingdom, should we not try to make the listing whole and complete? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motorways are probably always notable. The other list article you mention is for notable A-roads, which are essentially the next major road level after motorways. This article is not listing A roads so it cannot be compared. Aiken ♫ 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are a different Class of road makes no difference. They are roads, in a predefined area. They could be Dirt Roads for all that matters. Their individual notability is explained on their own page. They can be listed togeather. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a massive difference. Motorways, in my guess, are always going to be notable, simply because of their nature of all being built in the past 60 years, so will have ample coverage and notability. Dirt tracks probably won't. Ordinary streets are, generally, not notable. I'm sure you can agree on this. Most of the millions of streets in the world contain ordinary houses, with ordinary people living in them. Nothing notable. There are exceptions, but as notable streets in x are the exception, it becomes difficult to define criteria for a list: example, do we include red links when we have no idea if a street is notable or not? Who gets to decide? Where is Manchester anyway? Is it the City, the centre, or the district? This list just has no hope to become anything useful. Aiken ♫ 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. All the "List of streets in X" pages should be deleted, not just this particular page. Otherwise we may as well copy a list of all the streets from the Manchester Street AZ Atlas, and when that is done do the same for any other city, town and village in the United Kingdom, and beyond. Wikipedia would change from over 3 million to over 4 or 5 million pages. I agree it makes sense to have lists of tallest buildings and structures, films set, mills, and schools in Manchester. But List of streets in Manchester is going too far. What next "List of bus shelters in Manchester" and "List of postboxes in Manchester". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory.--HLE (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to have a list of streets - if it was determined that streets in X are notable in general. For example, London might be able to claim that. And yet, there is no List of streets in London. Here we are with a list of random streets in Manchester, with no apparent criteria or general notability - might as well have List of houses in Manchester and List of shops in Manchester along with the bus stops and postboxes. I don't understand how this list is so necessary to Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HLE, Please take the argument that all List of roads in xxx should be deleted, to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) as it is well beyond the scope of this AFD. We are attempting to gain a consensus about this list, not all lists. Aiken, What does "if it was determined that streets in X are notable in general." mean? Are you saying that ALL the streets in an area must be notable collectivly for there to be a List article? Because if you are I believe you greatly misunderstand the point of a list. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it is fine to use street list articles, List of motorways in the United Kingdom, Lists of roads in the United Kingdom, etc. in the argument, even though they are well beyond the scope of this AFD. But if I use them I'm told to take the argument to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). Double standards here.--HLE (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on that link to suggest that non-notable concepts, such as streets, should be made into lists. We'll be moving onto bus stops and post boxes before we know it. We're not a compendium of everything that ever existed, only notable things, and we're not the Manchester A-Z. Aiken ♫ 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have articles on the streets themselves there is no reason not to have the relevant list articles. Wikipedia includes gazetteer information as a matter of course. MRSC (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have articles on all the streets, only a select few - a clear vio of WP:NOT. Aiken ♫ 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's potentional for them to be created, making your arguement redundant. Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every street is notable, so there isn't potential (for most of them). Aiken ♫ 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter that ALL the streets are not notable, The point of a List it to group togeather a list of the notable ones, Red Links are encouraged to promote the creation of Articles. Agin, I will point you towards the point of a list. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the purpose of lists, and there is nothing that suggests non-notable concepts (such as streets) should be included on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is some potential. Lugnuts (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why you're using edit summaries like "more fail" - it's quite rude really. And, no, there is no potential for most streets. We're not a compendium of everything that ever existed. Not every street is notable, it's more the exception than the rule - they are run of the mill things, most with ordinary houses with ordinary people living in them. Please stop trying to insist otherwise. I'm not against road articles - far from it - but I am against non-notable ones in list form, and so is policy. Aiken ♫ 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to insist otherwise. Unlike you? Many of these streets are notable - you are wrong. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these streets are notable. I never suggested otherwise. You're suggesting that they all have potential. They don't. And please stop with the obnoxious edit summaries. Aiken ♫ 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"...it is about every street in Manchester..." Have you looked at the list? It's a handpicked selection of 65 streets, some which are debatably not even streets (Piccadilly Gardens and Albert Square). There are thousands of streets in Manchester. Aiken ♫ 14:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could easily be renamed once kept - compare List of streets and squares in Lyon, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete or restructure to ensure that only notable streets can be included -- The purpose of a list of this kind is to identify article that are needed whcih will appear in it as redlinks. Some of the streets may need an article, but most will not. We should not encourage the creation of stub articles on NN streets, but that is what this list would tend to do in its present form. I do not object to streets called "Square" or "Gardens" in principle. However (unless the objective is to generate substantive articles) a category does the job much better than a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where there is a category, there should in general be a list. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. If the list needs cleaning up and reorganizing, that is not an argument for deletion, but for keeping and fixing. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Company of Seven

The Company of Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • "We haven't had a chance to get the references up yet"? I think you need to read WP:COI (and especially WP:AUTO. Anyway, delete. This name was hard to Google for, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. The only Gnews hit I found uses the phrase but is about a different subject. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Was the company's history not already published (in A Personal Recollection' The Company of Seven Theatre Group's History 1949-1989, as stated in the article)? The Wikipedia article looks suspiciously like a copyvio from said article. If you are merely looking for a web presence then you should be mindful of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given the group's longevity and the fact that its (self-published) history is kept by several major libraries, it seems plausible that a case for notability could be made if appropriate sources are found (and the massive WP:AUTO issues are fixed). Said sources would likely be found in older, probably regional newspapers and thus very unlikely candidates for a successful google search. The Millicent Library would be a good start. However in the absence of any independent sources coming to light it is a very clear delete.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clairyfy my earlier comment, I believed it was quite possible that a motivated editor might be able to produce a reliably sourced assertion of notability ("we haven't had time to get the sources up"). COI isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion, but failing to provide reliable sources when prompted certainly is. Delete --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, What Would Happen

Dude, What Would Happen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

I looked through many sources before nominating this article for deletion. I do not believe it meets the notability guidelines as no source is both secondary and provides significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The error under which you are laboring is your thought that the guideline WP:GNG is the only consideration toward notability. If that were so, there would be absoulutely no reason for any other criteria to exist. Indeed, many topics meet GNG in spades and yet do not survive as stand-alone articles, as the GNG is not the only criteria that may be considered... and too, each and every guideline is headed by the caution "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As long as the article does not violate WP:NOT, those exceptions are determined through consensus of editors in the discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe a sufficient argument has been advanced that this would qualify as an exception to the GNG. There are lots of subjects which receive repeated and minor mention in newspapers and other reliable sources. I believe, as apparently do many others, that significant coverage is necessary to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Not only does significant coverage help to determine the notability of the subject, but creating an article requires more information than a few brief mentions at the tail-end of a newspaper article can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie5533 (talk • contribs) 02:38, August 13, 2010
Your personal belief in the GNG as if it were the grail, while laudable, is not supported by consensus, as a majority of editors do not agree with it being the ONLY pertinant criteria. While yes, meeting the GNG is often indicative of a presumption of notability, it is a rebuttable presumption... and many articles fail meriting a stand-alone even after far surpassing the requirements of the GNG. At odds with your argument is that consensus has long established that a failure to meet the GNG is not an automatic failure of WP:N, as notability may be also met by meeting subsidiary guidelines, or through consensus of commenting editors (agree with them or not) that may then create the allowable occasional exception. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to History_of_New_York_City_transportation. Though not sure how to organize the below content so I will let the parties decided what to put there. JForget 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hylan's "emergency bus lines"

Hylan's "emergency bus lines" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandiseeg Troll Theory

Gandiseeg Troll Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Comrie

Dominic Comrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McLaughlin

Conor McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torair

Torair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Joe Williams

Eddie Joe Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Withdrawn.--RadioFan (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hughes (radio)

Kim Hughes (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative wind orchestra with majorettes "Dimitar Mechev"

Representative wind orchestra with majorettes "Dimitar Mechev" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nura Zhinus Watson

Nura Zhinus Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Safwat Ghayur

Safwat Ghayur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Speedy Keep I can only say that this one time editor has come back to haunt my articles by unnecessarily nominating them for deletion. This martyred Officer was a Vanguard against the current fight against Terrorism. One of his junior Malik Saad, who was also martyred in a suicide bomb blast has also been graced with an entry on Wikipedia. A simple Google with his name will yield thousands of results as seen over here [14]. Perhaps the sentiments of the entire Pashtun population can be summed up in this article which recently appeared in a leading daily of Pakistan [15]. This nomination is nothing else but a joke and based entirely on bad faith, perhaps as a sore retaliation to my earlier blocking of certain vanity entries of this user's sock puppets. I recommend a strong keep to honour this commander of War against Terrorism. -- MARWAT  11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear -- MARWAT , please comment on objections raised by me instead of hanky pankies. Malik Saad was much Sr. to Safwat Ghayur, you are wrong. Malik Saad has an article because he is recepient of Presidential Medal. Malik Saad, whom you have given as a reference in support of this article was CCPO (Capial City Police Officer), an officer of Grade-20. Let me know how many other CCPOs of Pakistan are having article here on Wikpedia? None, as they doesn't qualify as per WP Notability. Please see the deletion log for aother CCPO Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. The only distinguish between Malik Saad and other CCPOs is Presidential Medal. As far as Safwat is concerned he, no qualm, was a second name of gallant and also the frontline soldier in War Against Terror. But what makes him so notable? Just google, yahoo and other search engines? I am a journalist myself, as my articles are published on various internet sites, different newspapers and magazines, my name will bear links to hundreds of websites where I am given very good place but it doesn't mean that I am too notable having name on search engine at hundreds of places. Why not Safwat Ghayur, ex-Commandant of Frontier Constabulary having an article before his martyrdom, if he was so notable? Just martyrdom makes him notable? If yes, then where are the articles of 600 other polie officers, 7-10 thousands of soldiers and many civilians who were martyred in War Against Terror? If being Commandant FC makes him so notable so where are the articles about the previous Commandants from the times of British Raj till December 2009, till the transfer of last Commandant Zafar ul Lah Khan, who was even serving in Grade-21 and is even promoted to the level of Director General of FIA? Why are you quoting a blog's link by terming it a leading newspaper? Wikipedia is not a racial forum or sentimental avenue where one culd presurrise and break the laws. I think rather arguing on a baseless thing with baseless arguments, we must spare time for creating healthy articles. --TurnWorst (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I have nothing more to say except that you are the same editor who has been vandalizing my earlier articles. As for your mumbo-jumbo about Grades, I can only say that you must be kidding by mentioning some God Damn Grades over here in utter disrespect of the sacrifice made by these brave lads of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. As for your absurdities regarding Ismail Khan’s eulogy to the Martyr published in Daily Dawn’s edition of 9th August 2010, which I had earlier on linked from a blog, I may like to give you now the actual link over here [16]. Please go there and read it with utmost care. Now something about the seniority and juniority of Malik Saad Shaheed and Safwat Ghayur Shaheed. Malik Saad Shaheed was from 17th Common Batch of Civil Services and Safwat Ghayur Shaheed was from 9th Common Batch of Civil Services. Please correct your unreferenced record. And without taking away anything from the valor of Malik Saad Shaheed and his Medals or Laurels, let me humbly say that may be you are aware of the fact that Government of Pakistan has already, as a beginning, announced one of the Highest Civil Gallantry Award known as Sitara-i-Shujaat for Safwat Ghayur Shaheed (the reference is already provided in the main article). I have nothing more to say and the closing editor will decide for himself/herself as to how much biased this nomination is. -- MARWAT  05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why personal attacks on me, this is the article regarding the deletion of safwat Ghayur not to discuss me. Suppose I am the most-wanted and the No. 1 bandit of the does it makes this article notable or non-notable? If I am the world No.1 liar but I say that Sky is Blue and you quarrel no it is black, so should everyone believe you because I am so so so? why aren't you refering to the objections I raised?
The government has announced so far and not hooured him with the Sitara-i-Shujaat. Even if it is honoured, like it is honoured to thousands of men and women, does it make him notable? Where are the articles about the rest of recepeitns of the same awards? I agree Safwat was from 9th common and Malik Saad from 17th but who was promoted first to Grade-20? It was Malik Saad. So Safwat stands Jr to him. Malik Saad was CCPO back in 2006 and Safwat became in 2008-09. I request to closing editor, that for a while curse be upon me if I am the same person with whom my fellow is confusing me with, but just examine and go-through the objections I have raised here about the non-notability. Were they replied or answered accordingly? Attacking me, rather answering my querries shows that how much intrest was there to create a non-notable and personal liked article. --TurnWorst (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment No body, who is voting Keep this article is replying the objections I have raised in favour of deletion of this article. The comments of the above two users are either against me or in personal favour of Safwat Ghayur, as they even know that many many officers are getting themselves out of province and on the other hand Safwat Ghayur, who was out of province for long -time since 2001 (the start of War Against Terror) till his death. You are lying to manipulate the deletion of this article, he was out of this province for 6 years out of 9 years of War Agains Terrorism. Many many officers martyred in War Against Terrorism, please create articles for thoe, wether Pakistani, Afghanistani, American, British and so so. Please abuse me, I will forgive you, curse me, I will forgive you, but atleast reply and answer, infact clear the objections raised by me in favour of this article's deletion. --TurnWorst (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to be confusing the context of the article. It is the particular circumstances to his death and events prior to that ..which make the article notable. It could well benefit from a thorough edit, but the fact remains his death is notable. There are many other ex commandant FC's around but none of whom died while fighting the tehrik-e-taliban. All officers and people are not equal because context changes the event. If he had died of cancer or some illness he would not likely have deserved an article but he was murdered in the line of duty in unique circumstances. That makes him different. yoiu are right many others have died in similar circumstances but that is like saying Daniel Pearl was a journalist so his death wasn't notable. Or in a pakistani context can you name all the Supreme Court bar Association chiefs prior to Aitzaz Ahsan? unlikely, but despite being more a politician, Aitzaz is a notable character while most of the other SCBA Presidents are not..as such I shall continue to support the retaining of this article..with the caveat that it needs better editing & referencing Zak (talk)
Comment Yes, I can name all the presidents prior to Aitezaz Ahsan. They are Akram Sheikh, Hamid Khan, Malik Abdul Qayyum, Munir A Malik. What else? Please do not detrack or drag the dicsussion away to divert the attention of Closing Editor, just clear the objections. But once again no one is replying or clearing the objecions raised in favour of deletion of this article at the third paragraph (above). You must not manipulate the articles, clear the objections, please. --TurnWorst (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've always been one to walk into places I'm not supposed to be in... First, for those who want a link to the article in question it's Safwat Ghayur. Second, Wikipedia is not for memorials. However, there could be notability here. Third, would the combatants above please give up on personalities and get down to a Wikipedia rules based discussion of the article? The former presidents of wherever are irrelevant. So are the 57 predecessors of the subject here. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Peridon - Exactly my point. The user TurnWorst is bringing in absolutely unnecessary things. Besides Safwat Ghayur was a hero and died as a hero and that's why the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of the four provinces of Pakistan, announced an official one day mourning in memory of this gentleman [17]. This fact has been duly published in prestigious New York Times as well [18]. -- MARWAT  01:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment The provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also announced another official one day moirning within past month after the myrtyrdom of Mian Rashid Hussein, the assasinated son of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Information Minister, Mian Iftikhar Hussein. So is Mian Rashid Hussein a notable too? Mr. -- MARWAT  who brought unnecessary things you or me? Who detracked the subject by personal attacks me or you? Closing Editor please note that none of he objections rasied, in the third paragraph of this page (above) are answered or cleared by any so far, rather -- MARWAT  have spoiled the discussion by taunts and personal attacks. --TurnWorst (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm calling on both of you to stop it now. I'm not saying who started it, who carried it on, or whose fault it is. You may not agree with each other, but try to behave in an appropriate manner by Wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:BLOCK. Will you please confine the discussion to matters relevant to the article, and in particular to the application of the relevant Wikipedia policies to the article? Virtually none of this lot so far will be considered by the closing admin as relevant to the topic in hand. I'm investigating the coverage of the subject at present, and will reach my own conclusion before long. Peridon (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThough, I have been using Wikipedia around for quite sometime but when I came across this article and notification of discussion for deletion, I felt like making some point. In my point of view Mr. Sifwat Ghayyur is notable enough to have this page on Wikipedia and I have reasons of my such belief in the light of 'Notability Guidelines' provided by Wikipedia. I would like to put forward my points one by one:

Basic Criteria

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

[19] [20] [21]

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

Additional Criteria

  • 1. Government of Pakistan has announced Sitara-i-Shujaat, in recognition of his services. Sitara-i-Shujaat is a Civil Award for Galantary[22].
  • 2. During his stay at National Police Academy as Course Commander for 25th and 26th Common Training Program, he contributed a great deal towards introduction of New Ideas of Policing in Context of Pakistan. Those, ideas are still in vogue in Police Service of Pakistan. The Officers and Ranks of Police Service of Pakistan, considers his style of Policing as something no less than an ideology. He is revered as an academician to all those who were his students at National Police Academy.
  • 3. Sifwat Ghayyur, is highly respected as a Professional for his unique style of Policing, many new fellows coming to service, tend to adopt his techniques.

Tail Piece

  • Further, The Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia Suggests Flexibility for its development, this page can stay there for all those who want to know about this man like myself.
  • Morever, I would like to add that, Mr. Ghayyur never claimed his prominence due to his strong family background, therefore, people commenting in his favour should avoid him being notable on such unimportant grounds.
  • Lastly, I would like to say that Mr. Ghayyur, in Pakistani Context, is someone, who will be remembered as a gentleman who is highly respected as a thorough professional who served Pakistan and International Community being a front runner in War Against Terror and laid his life in the line of duty. He might not be notable enough to have this page up running on wikipedia but his notability is more than this page and it will remain important, up and running, to all those who happened to see him in the Service of Mankind.

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

  • Comment Might I suggest that if notability BEFORE his death could be established better, there would be less problem. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Listen Pal, with reference to your earlier warning to me and TurnWorst, I can only point it out to you to kindly check the nomination date of this article for deletion and the date on which the account of user TurnWorst was created. Supposedly this user has been blocked earlier on as well for using multiple socks and I can name a few over here such as LineofWisdom and Marwat786, while there were others as well. My major suspicion comes from their style of English and specifically nominating my articles. The current Geo Location once again zooms on the same person who is Identified as [redacted]. Having said that, let me say that I am in no way drifting from the issue at hand and have been repeatedly pointing at the notability of the person in question. Dude, I am a genuine editor of Wikipedia and the fact can be established from the history of my edits. This article was my creation and I have every right to defend it over here. -- MARWAT  01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Attention Editor Please check that DFMPK (talk) just created account to cast his vote in favour, as -- MARWAT  has invited and aksed many Users earlier to cast their votes by leaving messages on their talk page. The aforementione user, for sure have created new ID to vote in favour of this article. I am not sure but what I have understood by going through some pages recently, that -- MARWAT  is strictly warned for posting (a assumed so far) my name and address. Whatever, but his recent acts shows that his efforts are to humiliate or disgrace me personally as I have challenged the notability of his article. WHy isn't he responding to objection I have raised? Doesn't his non-responding of objections proves that he himself is sure about the non-otability of the article? The article be deleted as he is failed to prove notability before the martyrdom of Safwat Ghayur --TurnWorst (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I don't know if this is a good-faith nomination or not, and frankly, I have no stomach to read through the tripe posted above by the two main parties in what seems to be a pissing contest. What I do know is that while the article may be in terrible shape, there are sources to establish the subject's notability. His death was notable enough to be noted in The New York Times, in Dawn, and in other sources. Alive, he was relevant as well--ABC News called him the "Wyatt Earp" of Pakistan, and throughout 2009 he was quoted often enough. Let's close this and put a stop to this ugly, ugly AfD, that I got involved with involuntarily. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Drmies, notability is pretty clearly established prior to subject's death, and additional posthumous coverage by multiple independent organizations, news sources, and government agencies confirms it. Doc Tropics 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be plenty of reliable coverage. I've no objection to a Speedy Keep, but possibly it should run its course to avoid suspicions of bias. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I work for a news producer in North America. Safwat Ghayur's name just came up in an interview with a scholar studying Pashtuns, who grew up in Peshawar: "We as children … remember his [SG's] stories." I probably had sufficient info to verify the name from the "Frontier Constabulary" article, but I always appreciate having more info than I need. So the article was helpful in my case, which suggests that it may be (or has been) helpful to other news organizations as well. Adelphious (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking just at the article, there seem to be sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkweed Latex Gasoline

Milkweed Latex Gasoline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article itself is atrociously written, but the contents are essentially correct. Euphorbia is a know biofuel source, and is listed in numerous primary and secondary sources detailing it's specific use as a potential biofuel for the future. The article really needs expanded and linked into renewable energy, biofuel articles. scope_creep (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree that Euphorbia could be used as biofuel source and definitely this should be added into the relevant article. However, there is no such thing as 'Milkweed Latex Gasoline'. There is no even search results for this name except Wikipedia and its derivatives. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of notability, or even of existence, of the topic. If Euphorbia is a known biofuel source that information could be added there, or at Asclepias (it's not clear which is being referred to). No need to merge - this is so badly written that it's difficult to see anything here that's of use.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read a few articles, moved it to an appropriate page name, removed all of the content, wrote a brief paragraph. It's now an article. It wasn't. If someone had asked the plant project earlier it might have saved 14 days of air space for this nonsense and its discussion. Done. {{subst:4tilde}} (<- This was User:JaRoad)
Changing to Keep I added a source that can be used to fill out a satisfactory start to the article; it covers problems, history and future development issues that need to be addressed. Hardyplants (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving any content to biofuels or alternative fuels? If the topic develops enough a break-out page can be made, but at the moment I can't see more than a paragraph or two plus maybe a list of potential species. There is also a

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

Puttting it in energy crop would require rewriting that article' entire introduction and reorienting in a way that the term "energy crop" is not usually ujse. I don't know a lot about it, though, and it seems hydrocarbon produucing plants deserve a mention. These plants are unique because of why they are used, namely exploitation of their terpenoid pathways, research engaged in heavily by Calciv, the king of plant pathways. Whatever the name, it can stand alone, but would require an off-topic section in most other articles, by the way, you can also get fuel by exploiting the terpenoid pathway's products to create gasoline. I'll write this article, but I won't add it to another, because it would require an entire other level of research to put it into context, whereas this is an interesting, discrete topic, coupled with a very famous scientist, one of the most famous inm the world. That's all I have to say, as I would have rather spent thhis time writing an article. JaRoad (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having stubs isn't a problem. A look down the biofuels page reveals plenty of specific methods with their own articles. In fact, this might have enough overlap with one of those, such as Green diesel or Vegetable oil refining, to be merged. (The whole area is a bit of a thicket: I think there's some duplication between trade names (e.g. Green crude) and generic terms.) If not, I think it should have its own article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Biogasoline is another potentially similar topic. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion except the nom - on the coverage of the subject JForget 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Rao

John Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep. John Rao is a fairly important player in the traditionalist Catholic Movement who as well as publishing a large number of pieces in Catholic newspapers and magazines such as the Remnant, the Latin Magazine, the Seattle Catholic, the Wanderer, the Social Justice review and a number of Italian and German magazines. Outside this circle he's also attracted attention (apart from the slight Czech argument with Cardinal Vlk, for example on lifesute and with PBS. JASpencer (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Slightly difficult beacuse there aren't many 'traditional' secondary sources, but there are hundreds of slightly 'non-traditional' sources - try Googling "John Rao Catholic", and it becomes apparent that he's a big cheese in the traditional catholic sphere. Chris (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from his speech, for what is he noted? I googled him and got nothing. What is his personal philosophy?--Lyricmac (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now I see after googling 'John Rao Catholic'.--Lyricmac (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Claro

Cesar Claro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzone Album 2011

Boyzone Album 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First tuesday

First tuesday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kimel

Mike Kimel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presimetrics

Presimetrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lansden

Lisa Lansden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
... and claimed to be named "[[User:Tbrooks|Lisa Lansden]]" in this initial edit, further reinforcing my suspicion of one person controlling two accounts here and one on Wikimedia Commons.   — Jeff G.  ツ 08:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia)

County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Delete - no sources, checked Google news/books/scholar for other mentions, the only mentions from news are where it's mentioned in passing about a traffic accident and as part of an award of contracts for bridges from 2006. No mentions on scholar, and the one mention on books appears to be from a book culled from Wikipedia. I also note the content has remained unchanged since it's creation, the only changes since 2007 to the article are infobox and category tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G5) by Kww. NAC. Cliff smith talk 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Mouf A.K.A. Khia Shamone

Motor Mouf A.K.A. Khia Shamone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No for Compulsory Military Service" Movement

"No for Compulsory Military Service" Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away Slow (album)

Walk Away Slow (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 by Kww (talk · contribs) JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elecktric Blue

Elecktric Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

I'm still not good at closing AFDs, so I'll let someone else do that part. I speedied the article as a G4.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Choke

Rape Choke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While a real slang term, this orphaned article has no sources and doesn't demonstrate the subject's importance. News archive search returns nothing useful: [24] — east718 | talk | 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Andelman

Philip Andelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger (dog)

Nigger (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Comment: Also, there is at least one other, possibly more notable dog with the same name (as another user pointed out on the article's talk page). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 12,000 Years

After 12,000 Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Whoops, i just got an "f" in bibliographic research. i stand corrected, i obviously didn't read deeper into my links. ill do better next time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of the references already cited, 333 by Crawford et al contains descriptions of novels which are "generally considered the best efforts in Science-Fantasy up to and including 1950" which would indicate some notability. Lloyd Eshbach in his book Over My Shoulder lists it as one of the stronger titles issued by FPCI. ISFDB has references to three reviews, two of which are signed. While I don't have access to these reviews, their existence as well as the the inclusion in 333 would satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BK. I will add the Eshbach quote and cite the reviews in the article. --Rtrace (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Weak Keep if WP:BK trumps WP:GNG: Given the two additional citations, I can see an argument for keeping this under WP:BK. I still don't believe those reviews clearly enough indicate notability per WP:GNG, but it's closer to being verifiably notable than before...Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It trumps. Not even us Wikipedians have been dumb enough to think that we could create a single, workable standard for every subject on the planet. General notability and its subject-specific kids are an either-or thing: a subject can stick around if there's at least modicum of evidence that it's good to have as a part of our coverage of its field, or that it's good to have, period. We could never get asteroids, programming techniques, obscure Eastern European delicacies and webcomics into the same encyclopedia otherwise. (On a related note, if anyone claims that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, go over there and slap him with a fish.) --Kizor 18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guidelines are just guidelines, not interlocking sets of universal rules regarding inclusion or disinclusion. Just ask youself: "Does this topiic and article belong in an encyclopedia? Is it accurate? Is it verifiable? Is it presented neutrally or correctable to a neutral presentation?" Carrite (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the author. Unfortunately, I cannot find any reviews, other the the unsubstantial ones already listed. Cobletz is important, but not nearly so important that every book of his can be assumed to be notable. I'm not sure how to take the comments cited, but I think merge would be the default. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found one additional reference and added it to the article (Barron's Anatomy of Wonder 4). I am curious as to why the coverage in 333, the Chalker/Owings book, the Eshbach book and the Tuck encyclopedia is considered unsubstantial. As I read WP:GNG and WP:NB these works satisfy the required criteria. While I don't have access to the magazine reviews or the Bleiler mention (they were found through tertiary source, ISFDB), I would presume both the Pohl and Conklin reviews as well as Bleiler to be substantive absent evidence to the contrary. All three are well known editors. What threshold do these articles need to meet beyond what is mentioned in the two notability policies? --Rtrace (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been reissued by Garland (a very serious publisher) and is showing in 181 libraries on WorldCat, which is a fairly massive number. So I'll strike the "Weak"... Carrite (talk)
  • Strong Keep - Being an inclusionist, I don't see any point in removing this article which has strong sources and was written during the golden age of science fiction. The whole point of wikipedia is to create and link information. Lets hope the author goes on to create all the other articles for the books that Stanton A. Coblentz wrote. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherri Hill

Sherri Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangway (disambiguation)

Gangway (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Fusco

Daniela Fusco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Incredibles. "It became the first animated Hindi movie to be exhibited in Indian cinemas" is unsubstantiated by reliable sources, and as it turns out from Sodabottle's research, it requires some weaseling to be true. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Hain Lajawab

Hum Hain Lajawab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis (band)

Psychosis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tessaleno Devezas

Tessaleno Devezas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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


  • DeleteWeak delete. Awards don't appear to be major ones. The Web of Science lists 21 articles, that have been cited 172 times for an h-index of 6. His most-cited paper dates back to 1978 (before he obtained his PhD) and has 88 citations, accounting for over half of the total. The articles on which this article bases his notability have the following counts: 21, 12, 12, 9, 6, and less. Running a "cited references" search (which also covers citations to books and book chapters) does not reveal anything cited more than 1 or 2 times. In view of the fact that he started publishing in the 1970s, these citation data do not indicate any special impact on his field. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepStrong Keep: Sufficiently notable work to justify keeping. Perhaps needs rewriting but is perhaps written to show notability in a vain attempt to avoid AfD. Notability seems to me not only in general but for us who use him in a wide range of articles (Search for Tessaleno Devezas on Wikipedia). But I don't know how/if we count this - (a WP-use score of 11 perhaps). (This could have been done deliberately - but a quick look does not seem to make this likely) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The Portuguese books seem to have reviews in the national press and the national radio interview seem enough for general notability (Msrasnw (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
EG Modelo económico ocidental vai perder hegemonia mundial - dn - DN Diário de Notícias - Lisboa - [25] Nov 23, 2007 (Msrasnw (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I don't think I've seen the argument "we use him in WP" before. In any case, user-contributed sites such as WP are not reliable sources. What doe you mean with "Sufficiently notable work"? His work has been cited 172 times in a timespan of 30-40 years, with only 6 articles having 6 citations or more. That's something like 6 citations per year, I know postdocs who have that much per week. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Crusio to clarify my confused contribution: By sufficiently notable - I mean he seems to have published work that has made an impact (and seem to me, with an admittedly subjective judgment worthy of including in our encylopedia). His books have been subject to review in journals and his articles have caused debate - in Technological Forecasting & Social Change (A jounral which I have sometimes read) he has articles and then articles commenting on them. (But he is an editor of it). The fact that we use him as source in some of articles although not sufficient just seems to add weight to us having an aricle on him. (Also I liked the finding via this search of wikipedia of Nataša Kejžar - this is what make wikipedia interesting!). His awards and mentions:
* “Elsevier 2001 Prize for the Outstanding Paper”, awarded in February 2002 for the paper “The Biological Determinants of Long Wave Behavior in Socioeconomic Growth and Development” published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, volume 68, Number 1, pp. 1-58, September 2001.
* Awarded with an N.D. Kondratieff Medal 2004 by the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and the International Kondratieff Foundation (decided on 24 May 2004, conferral ceremony on 20 October 2004, at the 5th Kondratieff Conference, Saint Petersburg, Russia).
* Awarded with the status of Honorary Member of the International Kondratieff Foundation, certificate conferred in February 18, 2005, at the closing ceremony of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on “Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security”.
* Honorable Mention by Elsevier Inc. to the paper “The Growth Dynamics of the Internet and Long Wave Theory” published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, volume 72, Number 8, pp. 913-935, October 2005 (this award is published in TF&SC 73(3), March 2006
Also would seem sufficient to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Are you arguing that the awards are highly prestigious and at an national or international level? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point, they are not. As for his books having been the subject of reviews, that may be something else, can you provide references? The journal editorship you mention might qualify under WP:PROF, but our article (and the journal website) mention Harold A. Linstone as editor and Devezas is only a member of the editorial board. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of refs to book reviews. (But not this one on his elephant book: http://www.centroatlantico.pt/titulos/desafios/salomao/imagens/jornalnoticias-18nov2008-salomao.jpg) No I am not claiming the awards are highly prestigious just as indicators of his impact. He was the main subject of a 50 minute interview on Portugal's leading radio station (RDP Antena 1). Would this help - if so how should it be added? I think adding it would help defend the article but would seem to make the article worse. Already I think the article is problematic by an over-stress on establishing notability rather than just telling us a little about him and his work.(Msrasnw (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The radio show: Prof. Tessaleno Devezas em entrevista na Antena 1 Sábado pelas 10h, no programa "1001 Escolhas". Sábado pelas 10h, vai para o ar na rádio Antena 1, no programa "1001 Escolhas" uma entrevista longa ( 50 min) com o Prof. Tessaleno Devezas, docente e investigador do Departamento de Engenharia Electromecânica à mais de 18 anos. Should we add the elephant review reference ? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, so it appears that the awards do not help this reach WP:PROF. Certainly a radio show can be cited, see the cite episode template at Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It may be that the subject qualifies under general notability guidelines using such references. As for the quality of the article, AFD isn't cleanup, so if notability can be established, we can clean it up later--for example, the essay section on theory would have to go, I think, but that's all a job for laterman. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Comment Even taking into account that Devezas switched fields, 192 citations is really not very significant. When I referred to the length of time, I meant to say that the longer an article is around, the more citations it garners. The citation data cited by JDvzs abvoe here do not indicate a level of impact satisfying WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JDvzs, you appear to only have an interest in this article and a couple of related ones--I don't mean to pry, but I wonder if you have a conflict of interest. Also, please take a look at WP:N for guidelines and policies governing what counts in try to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Discussion of Devezas et al. article - Unconvinced about a 5th K-wave: A response to Devezas et al. Author(s): Ayres, RU Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 72 Issue: 8 Pages: 936-937 Published: OCT 2005
  • Comments on the Devezas-Corredine paper Author(s): Duncan, JF Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 59-62 Published: SEP 2001
  • What causes K-waves? Author(s): Modelski, G Source: TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 75-80 Published: SEP 2001 Abstract This commentary on the Devezas-Corredine paper raises three questions: how do we think and how do we need to think about K-waves, what causes K-waves in the Devezas-Corredine model, and in what sense do social and biological factors add to a better understanding of large-scale structural changes in the world economy. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be well published. An economist working in long-wave theory, I take it; winning a Kondratiev prize would indicate significant work in the field. The entire section of quotations needs to be blanked, assuming the article is kept. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have some doubts about the Kondratieff prize and even if the gold medal would turn out to be a notable award, I don't think that the second-place silver medal would satisfy WP:PROF. The fact that Devezas is "well published" is trivial: publishing is what academics do. His production is not exceptional and most articles appear to have gone unnoticed with minimal citations to them. --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Each thing alone might not (or might) be suffcient to pass WP:prof but all together - also with the book reviews - some in Portuguese national press [26] and subject of an interview on Portugal's leading radio station would seem to invovlve a mix general - via authorship of noted books - and academic notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I don't think that multiple non-notable things together add up to notability. The one book review is not bad, but that is not enough. Are there any WP:RS about the radio interview? If it has been added to the article or given above, I have overlooked it. --Crusio (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Crusio A source for the Radio show is : University of Beira Interior's website - here: http://www.ubi.pt/Noticia.aspx?id=182. This seems to me OK since it is the University's site - and so might be an aceptable source - the Antenna 1 site does not seem to have an easily searchable archive. But I don't think it would be useful to add to the article which already reads to much like a promotional article. Looking for Portuguese books reviews one can find the following refered to:
  • 1509 - A Batalha que Mudou o Domínio do Comércio Global was reviewed in Expresso, 10th January 2009 -
  • Salomão − O Elefante Diplomata was reviewed in in Expresso, 22 November 2008
  • Portugal − O Pioneiro da Globalização Expresso, was reviewed in 30 June 2007 - Expresso, 30 de Junho de 2007.
Our page on this paper is here Expresso (Portuguese newspaper) and this seems a reasonable source. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
PS I think I am of the view that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources and that multiple things added together help show his significance anywya I guess we disagree on this but best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment I do not have a COI, altough I may be quite relative to Devezas, when I started this article I did it with the intention to base my decisions on objective criteria. And from my point of view so it has been, since in my opinion Tessaleno has indeed some academic notability and much of it can be found on arguments layed in this very much discussion. Having explained my impartiality, I would not have this article deleted.
  • Comment JDvzs, yes, it would, and if you are a relative, better to acknowledge it, so at least everyone knows what the possible conflict of interest is. It is difficult for most people to edit articles on subject to which they have a close relationship, but not impossible. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 13:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahane Israel (Chabad)

Mahane Israel (Chabad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

correct me if im wrong but although some of the sources do not reference specifically this organisation they clearly state that this is one of the 3 main organisations of the worldwide chabad-lubavitch movement Mkonikov
Well, how can they clearly state that without referring to the organisation? noq (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, talk about zealous nominating for AFD--on the same day that the article was created, today, it is being nominated for deletion! Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pages are routinely nominated for deletion on the day they are created. The article needs to show notability - not rely on people having knowledge of Chabad. noq (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote:
From COL: Machne Israel Development Fund was established by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of blessed memory, in 1984, as a funding organization for sustaining the growth and expansion of Chabad-Lubavitch activities worldwide.
From Ask Moses: In addition to the establishment of the Lubavitch Yeshivos Tomchei Tmimim in the U.S.A. and Canada, the Rebbe founded Machne Israel, Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Beth Rivkah and Beth Sarah schools for Jewish girls, and the Kehot Publication Society, dedicated to the issue of books in the true spirit of Torah and tradition.
From New York Times: His father-in-law, who had arrived in the United States a year earlier, appointed him to head several Lubavitch organizations, including Merkos L'inyonei Chinuch, the group's educational arm, and Machne Israel, a social service organization.

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

MAHANE Israel is not mentioned - is Machne Israel the correct name? That does make them mentioned in the articles but I still don't see anything in the article itself that distinguishes this organisation from any of the tens of thousands of charities in the world that could state similar aims. noq (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that it's after all just a transliteration from the hebrew name מחנה ישראל it can and will end up being spelled in multiple different ways (Machne Yisrael, Machne Israel, Machane Israel etc.)
What distinguishes it from other charities is the fact that it is the foundation of the worldwide chabad movement here in the US ever since it's founding in 1950sMkonikov (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Machne Israel is the standard spelling that the organization uses (e.g. here). I've fixed it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be distinguished from all other jewish social organizations? see Category:Jewish communal organizations. Larryyr (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. euh... the delete arguments outweights the no delete ones by a long shot JForget 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasra Tamjidi

Kasra Tamjidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ettehad

Ali Ettehad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Bloch

Sanam Bloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) speedy deleted the article per G3 on 06:56, 8 August 2010. (Non-adimin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alantia Coupet

Alantia Coupet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coey Turipa

Coey Turipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Comment I agree to a degree, but there is no requirement for a reference to prove notability, only verifiability.--ClubOranjeT 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than a Bomb

Louder Than a Bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

  • In my view on "notability," a film that has a theatrical release at one of the top US art houses is notable. Period. There should be a Wikipedia article for every film meeting this criteria. The fact that a film doesn't have a "general release" has no relevance to the importance of a film. The fact that a major art house theater (two in this case) opens a film for at least a week is notable. I'd taken the time to include references to the pages (IFC Center/NY and Arclight Hollywood/LA) covering the movie in question to show the film opened at these venues.
  • In addition I'd noted that this film is part of the DocuWeeks selection of 17 films chosen specifically because they were deemed worthy of Academy consideration for the documentary category. I'd included a link to the DocuWeeks page.
  • This is probably not the appropriate place to make this comment and it will likely be deleted, but I think it needs to be made. This is exactly the reason I'd stopped doing any work on Wikipedia around six months ago. I don't have time for this and don't need the aggravation. It's clear to me that doing any real work on Wikipedia is truly a waste of my time. I'll continue to make an edit here and there, and possibly create another article or two over time, but it's just not worth the effort to do anything substantial. As others have noted (reference the Wikipedia losing volunteers article on CNET), this is a major weakness of Wikipedia. Obviously the deletion process is important...it's a question of when to mark an article for deletion. Was this really necessary? John Dhabolt (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Official selection at at least 3 film festivals. Audience choice for best Film at the The Cleveland International Film Festival. Sufficient coverage: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. There may not be in-depth coverage yet, but there's enough for a properly-referenced article and I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this be disambiguated from the Public Enemy song of the same name off It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sensible, and easy enough to do.[34][35] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PORTMEDIA

PORTMEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Incubate. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Carlo Guicciardi

Gian Carlo Guicciardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

    • Keep: Guicciardi is an outstanding violin maker, many musicians especially in Italy, Germany and Japan play a Guicciardi violin, viola or cello. He is the most important pupil of Ansaldo Poggi (one of the most important Italian luthier). Marcella Ghigi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.37.156 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - President of EILA (International Society of Violin and Bow Makers. Perhaps an arcane topic but seems a well known figure within the violin-making world. Article is not done in a commercial manner. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Rcamillini that rarely contemporary violin makers appear in the news, and strictly following Wikipedia's notability criteria probably more than 50% of the makers listed here should be deleted. Maestro Guicciardi is with no doubt a well known and reputed collegue, someone who will not be forgotten by our History.--RegazziR (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't have an unsourced BLP and all the keep votes are by assertion, except one and the subject isn't even mentioned in that. Spartaz Humbug! 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. Appears he may be notable but further work is required. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to James Bond (film series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between James Bond novels and films

Differences between James Bond novels and films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Delete - While there may actually be reliable secondary sources to use as references for the changes made in adapting the books to film, this information is more properly included in the articles on the individual films and, less so, the individual books. They should not be compiled into this type of trivia. And having skimmed through some of the book and film articles, they do cover this ground. And as it seems is consistent with film and television focused list article crafted by TMC1982, the sections of this list are copied, most times verbatim, from sections of those individual articles. This frankensteined back fill list isn't helpful, it isn't with the intent of a list article, and it sure isn't a "good start" for an article. - J Greb (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is actually a well-written article, but it's also one of the worse content forks I have ever seen. As J Greb hinted at, it's basically trivia disguised as an encyclopedic article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article should be broken up and each part made a section in its movie's article, if that's not the case already. Wolfview (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to let everybody know, that I initially put article itself within the "James Bond novels" page. I only changed my mind, because I feared that the article would know come across as too lengthy, hard to follow and overpacked! TMC1982 (talk) 01:11 a.m., 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That was noticeable with tracking related edits. But it doesn't change much since the section that was created within James Bond novels, and then split off, was constructed almost entirely by copying verbatim sections from the articles on the various Bond novels. The odd ones out were copied from the film articles. The only difference is that as a section, the "list" would have been removed by copy editing rather than going through an AfD. - J Greb (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Shouoto

Aya Shouoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USA (Horrible Histories)

The USA (Horrible Histories) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about a sub-page of Horrible Histories called "List of books in Horrible Histories", much like the many pages for "list of episodes.."? That way there can be a short summary of each book (much like there is on this page, but more concise and less fan-like) and leaving th main page to look less like a massive list of book to more of a proper article.
  • Delete if its not sourced it should be nuked. Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find references to establish the notability of the subject. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw-Lan Wang

Shaw-Lan Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: if the lack of references bugs you, go find some and put them in. I've already put in a(n admittedly not brilliant) source that at least proves that she's a tiwaneese media business woman --Arkelweis (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the way it works. I searched, I read the Chinese Wikipedia article, and I thought her notability was borderline at the very best, so I nominated it. If you or somebody else can prove notability then great - it's always good to see well-referenced articles which establish the notability of borderline subjects like this. But at the moment I don't think there's enough there. I have in the past added tons of references to other Taiwan-related articles, so if I nominate something for deletion, it's because I really don't think it's notable (especially when it comes to BLPs). But, like I said, I'm always happy to be proven wrong. Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have discarded spa votes leaving stong arguments to delete for inadequate sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mc subzero

Mc subzero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

  • KEEP* - Substance of musical notability the artist MUST have one of the following - Criteria states artist MUST have been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - Now MC SubZero has appeared TWICE on the BBC British Asian Network Channel - with sources included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.139.145 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 92.15.139.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G11 as blatant promotion. Possibly even A7 as well. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICIAN. Also, he most certainly hasn't been the subject of a broadcast. Not even sure it's the same person, the BBC source only says "Sub Zero". Regardless, simply appearing on a radio show (twice) is not enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Christopher, you said that the article was 'blatant promotion' - Now as it stands the article states credentials of a musician - Their is no 'blatant' promotion conspiracy. MC SubZero appeared on this BBC radio station which the sources verify and also had a half an hour set and interview within that program. Thats notable considering the BBC is the largest broadcasting radio station in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia:Notability (music)

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

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

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

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

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

Elie Hirschfeld

Elie Hirschfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

  • Keep There is plenty of news coverage about him; I added a couple of links to the article since it was short of Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon a quick glance, most, if not all, of the links that are about the subject seem to be reprints of press releases, which wouldn't make them independent of the subject. 01:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – sgeureka t•c 09:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmie Keegan

Kimmie Keegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Sourceless plot summary article about a very minor fictional character. A merge is not appropriate because there is no usable content in this article and no suitable merge target. Reyk YO! 07:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds (TV series)

Sounds (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players with dual nationality

AfDs for this article:
List of association football players with dual nationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment. This appears to have never been fully listed, so I've re-added the AFD template to the article and added it to a debate for today. Esteffect (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does have a use, but too many players have dual nationality (most French internationals, for a start). Esteffect (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The content of this article, if it is ever to become comprehensive, would be too massive to make it a feasible subject. – PeeJay 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as article creator. The list is not trivial - dual-nationality in football is a manjor issue - it may be incomplete (but says so, and many lists aren't, so it's a moot point), I don't understand how it is "inconsistent", and being an orphan is no reason to delete. Esteffect - saying that "too many players have dual nationality" surely means that it merits having a list of them - a list which is organised, referenced, and kept tidy, as this one is. Look at the article history - I am constantly removing unreferenced players that people add! And if the article gets too big, it can be broken down into seperate articles - size is not an issue here. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there simply is too many. In France alone, there has probably been thousands of dual nationality footballers, and most Soviet footballers from a short time ago possessed multiple nationalities too (such as Czechoslovakia's entire team). Esteffect (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Size is not a matter. It can be split to A to C, D to F, or a separate list for Argentine. the list currently with citations. Matthew_hk tc 06:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems arbitrary to me, if dual-nationality is relevant to a player then it can be mentioned on his/her article. A list which can never be completed which, whilst not a reason for deletion in itself, is not necessarily desirable! --129.234.252.67 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will either incorrectly contain or misleadingly ignore technically impossible combinations of dual nationalities, in cases where one or both countries do not recognise the concept. Would in many cases require two citations per individual, which is an implausible amount of referencing that on a large scale will far exceed the template limits of wikipedia pages. Although I can see how this might in some cases be relevant (for instance an international from outside of these regions gaining EU or US citizenship to get around nationality restrictions in domestic leagues), it certainly isn't universally important. --WFC-- 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Horrendous concept for a list; it is pure trivia and can never be complete. The people on the list have are not notable for having dual nationality, and they share nothing in common that would warrant listing them together other than the fact their parents have different nationalities, which is a complete non-fact. BigDom 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per bigdom. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_August_8&oldid=377872781"