Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 1

< 31 July	2 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho! Improv & Sketch Comedy

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

I tagged this for notability concerns in February. Those concerns were not addressed, yet the tag was removed. None of the citations say anything about the subject of the article other than listing the group as participating in improv events, and it seems unlikely that independent, reliable sources exist for the rest of the information in the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited do not provide the level of significant coverage that is required to establish notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete not only do the sources cited not provide evidence of notability, neither do there seem to exist any sources not cited which would establish notability. the best legit sources i can find mention individual former members who made good, but mentions of the troupe are only incidental. the rest of the coverage is self-promotional, like the sources already used in the article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Both Yahoo! and Google didn't get any good sources under this article's name. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Glover

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and not much in the realm of RS or N either. Has been starving for citations since 2010. Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Zero notable links on both Yahoo! and Google.Keep - The article has now cited two articles, but I think it would help if more sources were added. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see sufficient reason for a speedy deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets AUTHOR and ACADEMIC. [1] [2] Christopher Connor (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY, or else significantly improve on the current sources. WP:ACADEMIC (same as WP:PROF) requires the subject's impact to be substantiated by independent reliable sources, and I'm not impressed either by the current number of sources (two) or their depth (seem to be just passing mentions of the subject). Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources that show the subject clearly meets AUTHOR and PROF. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As recent edits to the article show, the subject definitely meets ACADEMIC (and, now it's properly set out, the publication list is impressive) - though the article can probably be substantially improved if someone now uses the "Further reading" list to help develop it. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a really bad job of explaining his notability, but chairing a European Commission panel seems like cast-iron notability to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Equities Group

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

Sources don't support WP:CORP notability. Forbes link is broken, Bloomberg link is simply to a company profile; no non-trivial third-party coverage. Creator of page blocked as a spam only account; recently, two other SPAs have cropped up with the same intentions.[3],[4] OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an ad for a unotable company.Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hits in Google News on either the present name or the two predecessors ("World Market Media" and "Equities.com") are either reprints of other press releases, or are not referring to this company. Nor do sources in article itself demonstrate notability (guessing by the title, the Forbes link is just a reprint of this press release). cab (call) 06:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of other notable mentions, media coverage in general. Aside from this news mention, a Twitter and Facebook, there weren't many good mentions on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have speedily deleted this as unambiguous advertising: ...developing an interlinking portfolio of stock market news data websites all with a consistent social network built throughout the back-end of each site. The collection of properties will for "The Global Online Investment Community". The company also provides interactive advertising, digital IR/PR, journalism, market intelligence, media/marketing, news dissemination, research, video production and ancillary specialty communications services to publicly traded companies worldwide. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Under the Western Freeway. Courcelles 03:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Stock (song)

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

Google searched and does not appear in any charts or media. Lachlanusername (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to fail WP:BAND and GNGHerrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussions at Talk:Grandaddy#Proposed_merger have the possibility of merging several song article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Under the Western Freeway, the album that it was taken from. Why would deletion be in any way better?--Michig (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Under the Western Freeway per WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not really much to add to the below consensus, which doesn't need clarifying. Pretty clear cut. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide by hanging

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

I'm concerned about this article. I'd expect an article like this to be built around medical references, etc. Instead, it seems to be built around an article hosted at http://www.suicidemethods.net/text/halfofit.htm#chaphanging -, by a chap called Geo Stone. There's a bit too much 'recommending' for my taste, and not enough dispassionate analysis. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). The nomination doesn't give any reasons to delete. There are enough references to the subject to pass the GNG. The point that this has too much "recommending" and not enough dispassionate analysis is spurious. I can only locate one sentence about mostly practical matters: "Regarding the practicalities of performing a drop hanging, Stone recommends using a low-stretch rope such as manila or hemp, that the rope be more than an inch thick, and that the knot be close to the chin and situated such that it will "rotate toward the chin and snap the head backwards" when the rope is pulled." The rest appears to be "dispassionate analysis" to me. Regarding Stone, I opened a thread at RSN here (contains more info on reliability of Stone). There was only one respondent so it was inconclusive. Even without Stone, the subject would still clearly meet the GNG. Regarding "I'd expect an article like this to be built around medical references": it is not just medicine that studies suicide (though the article contains appropriate such references) but other fields. In any case, that isn't a reason to delete. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable topic in research and criminology and psychology separate from just hanging. The suicide article is too long and is more of a trunk and this is a branch of that area of study.Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a disproportionate amount of this article is devoted to execution by hanging. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be well sourced, and contains too much information to be merged conveniently back to Suicide. I agree with Djohns21 that the information about execution is inappropriate for this article, given its title. I would delete the whole paragraph about "drop hanging". --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this topic were to be merged, the correct target would not be Suicide as some commentors have alluded, but Suicide methods. LadyofShalott 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale given by the nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and sourced page and has too much content to suit merging.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written, well sourced, notable topic. Main Suicide article is too long, and this one is too long to be merged into suicide methods. AFD is not for cleanup. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in the article clearly support the notability of the topic. As Crisco 1492 points out, to the extent the article needs improvement, AfD is not the venue. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample coverage of this. Dream Focus 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arbcom going nuts with concerns, eh? Sources used here are reliable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced to the gills. Lots of people don't like abortion, but that doesn't mean it's not an encyclopedic topic. Now the nominator, who should know better, will please remove his glasses for a right proper fish-smacking... Carrite (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written, well sourced, notable topic. --- couldn't have said it better. Deleting pages about stuff you don't like is as useful as shutting your eyes and hoping it'll go away. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unpleasant topic, and I understand the concerns of the nominator - particularly in the article's state at the beginning of this discussion (when there was some NOTHOWTO problems), but it is clearly notable and is now written neutrally. LadyofShalott 12:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. No secondary sourcing contextualizing it simply a list of WP:SYNTH of Primary source material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, I can see there is some synthesis, but the lead is a good summary, and it is well-cited. It can be fixed, but that is not a reason to bring it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles by Julius Nam are secondary sources from a well qualified source. Several are secondary references but admittedly not detailed scholarly analyses, like the references in Adherents.com, Dialogue, and the light piece by the editor of Spectrum. Admittedly over half are primary sources. Disclosure: I am the original creator of the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very significant in popular culture, and adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and in no danger of becoming a quote farm. Keeps the chaff out of Seventh-day Adventism Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna in popular culture

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

fails WP:SIGCOV as it merely a list of every time a chanting ISCKON member has been shown in some media. No secondary sourcing contextualizing it simply a list of WP:SYNTH of Primary source material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons we don't have Catholicism in popular culture In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per in ictu Avi (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons relating to popular culture notability - since pop culture (movies, music, art and television) over the last 40+ years has definitely influenced how this religious group is seen and perceived by the general public. Some guy calling himself an "Anthropologist" called this list, "merely a list of every time a chanting ISCKON member has been shown in some media", to which I disagree. Allen Ginsberg appearing on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s show Firing Line on September 3, 1968, had a big impact on how the group was perceived (this was before they were even well known by most people). Any historian or "anthropologist" who knows anything about the history of the Hare Krishna movement in the Western World, and who is worth any salt, should know this, and how important the influence of George Harrison and The Beatles were to the spread of knowledge about this religious movement too. Also, to the person that said there isn't an article called Catholicism in popular culture, well so what, there's an article called Latter Day Saints in popular culture. The reason is because, comparatively speaking, Catholicism is basically already all over popular culture in the modern Western World, especially compared to more fringe groups like the Mormons (in comparison to Catholicism), and especially the Hare Krishna movement. I also think it would be fine if there was a Catholicism in popular culture article on Wikipedia too. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and articles for the more fringe groups especially. It should also be noted that there's a page entitled Humor about Catholicism, as well as Gnosticism in popular culture, and Scientology in popular culture. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of these pages, because I think they contain some useful information for those interested in fringe religious groups and movements and how they become popular and more well-known through the media. These things are of sociological interest, and I do not think they should be removed from Wikipedia. Geneisner (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sourcing described the phenomenon that would be one thing. So far we have nothing but oh he mentioned "Hare Krishna" or a secondary source mentioning ISCKON member in a movie. We require more than such tangental connections to write about the phenomenon. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully agree with the nominator. Somebody needs to start triviapedia (along the lines of TV Tropes), because this article nuthin' but that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable cultural artifacts, such a widely known religious movements, or other particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. Wikipedia particular is the best known, and the best, encyclopedic source for this material--it is one of our great strengths, and should not be diluted or compromised. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article (there are about 10% I have some trouble with) . Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given.

The study of the cultural effects of religion is a very basic and encyclopedic subject. The significance of this religious movement in the world, or any religious or political movement, is not only its doctrines and practices and history in the abstract, but the effect to which it has permeated popular consciousness. Christianity, for example, is important not just because it is widely practised , but because it is the basis of most European formal culture and much of folk culture for many centuries. Hare Krishna is important not just because of its significant number of devotees, but because it has permeated a considerable amount of American and to a lesser degree Western European culture for the last 50 years or so. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or keep everything but the See Also section). As per above.Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pretty clear-cut consensus to keep the article at this time. The main concerns--about the title, the overall scope, original research, etc.--seem valid and are acknowledged by most participants, but those are the kind of things we should deal with via the editing process. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

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

Topic fails WP:SIGCOV, there are couple of journal articles that are cited but for a large part alot of WP:OR and Synth. The Terminology section is totally off topic and largely unrelated material. The literature section mostly lists examples using WP:PRIMARY sourcing /WP:SYNTH methodology. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOR is not a reason to delete or keep an article - that's a content issue. There are numerous sources for the article, many of them scholarly publications. The article easily passed the last AFD, and there do not appear to be any new reasons for deletion. Will Beback talk 22:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- most of those scholarly sources are in the Terminology section which is completely unrelated to the rest of the article. The only serious source outside the section is when Stephen A. Kent compares the founder of a movement to a fictional character. The rest of the article is almost completely WP:SYNTH off Primary sourcing (i.e. simply describing them naming them and citing the fictional work.) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Synth is a problem then delete that material. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Will Beback talk 23:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Literature is a fertile source of historical attitudes toward a subject. A "cult" is defined in Merriam-Webster's (unabridged) as "a religion regarded as spurious" - not, by the way, as "a spurious religion". The emphasis is on regarded as - which requires a subject: WHO regards it as spurious, and did they give any reasons? We need more information on why people support one religion as valid and dismiss others as spurious. Literature will help us in this examination of the new religious movements. The last thing we need is to sweep the controversy under the rug. That's not what NPOV was created for. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article already has good historical perspective and there's more to say on this as Christianity was a new religious movement back in the day. For an example of a source covering that era, see Popular culture in ancient Rome. Warden (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Wikipedia doesn't have an article Cults and new religious movements for a good reason, it is duplication: Cults is redneck-speak for "new religious movements" in non-redneck.

As for keeping it.. all these "in popular culture" stubs sound like an open invitation to collect "sourced" comments from trash sources which don't meet WP:RS. Unless the intention is to build an article giving precedence to respectable university professors giving secondary analysis of the general redneckiness of popular culture what are such articles going to acheive? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Keep - this article seems like a combination of two basically separate topics: literature featuring cults/new religious movements, and literature by founders of cults/new religious movements. I don't see what the latter really has to do with the former: 'Altas Shrugged' and 'Battlefield Earth' aren't examples of 'Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture', are they? I would say Keep the first part of the article, but spin-off the sections about works by founders of movements into a separate article (or delete it entirely). Robofish (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me, the nomination of this article indicates the lack of understanding of Wikipedia that resulted in the two previous nominations also, as well as failure to discriminate between the different sorts of articles on the subject which can only represent a general opposition to covering the subject at all. This, unlike most such articles, is not basically a list or combination article, but a discussion of the subject, and a good one too. So and none of the usual criticisms of such lists apply.That the nominator did not see this implies that he is dis-satisfied with the entire general concept of having Wikipedia articles of any sort about popular culture. I might as usefully say we ought not have Wikipedia articles about computers, the other great specialty that Wikipedia does particularly well, and that the world uses us for. With respect to sources, the nom. claims only "a few journal articles"; I count 86 references, including entire books about the subject, and major encyclopedia articles--such sources are enough to establish any article subject. The proper scope of the article is for discussion on the talk p. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly partial keep per Robofish. Although I share the stated concerns over the POV-ness of the term "cult", some of the groups / movements mentioned in this article are anything but new. Calling Alexander of Abonoteichus the leader of a "new religious movement", for example, would be just plain silly. If a better name could be chosen for the article — something not using the word "cult" at all — I think that would be an improvement, but I think there is justification for including the content in Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats actually the only instance that of all the scholar references that use cult in the pejorative sense meaning psudeo-scientist and neither is it discussing popular culture. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - MacDougall, Curtis Daniel (1983). Superstition and the press. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 9780879752125.
  - It's not currently cited in this article, but this book is mostly devoted to reviewing coverage of cults and new religious movements in the mainstream media. Will Beback talk 04:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There being no opposition to deletion... Sandstein 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ah, bureaucracy! ....a proposed framework for the provision of electronic communications services within a set of frequency bands to be identified and agreed between European Union Member States in which a range of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services may be offered on a technology and service neutral basis, provided that certain technical requirements to avoid interference are met, to ensure the effective and efficient use of the spectrum, and the authorization conditions do not distort competition.....The concept was proposed in May 2004 by the European Commission asked an EU committee "Radio Spectrum Policy Group" to develop an “opinion” on a new approach to wireless policy to be tried in a limited number of bands. In Dec 2007 CEPT's (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) European Communications Committee (ECC) issued a draft report, and in March 2008, the European Commission’s Communications Committee (CoCom) expressed a positive opinion on the Draft Commission Recommendation (RSCOM08-1625). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratese is usually translatable into English, if thought worth the trouble. But this isn't actually pure Bureaucratese, but just a list of the bodies considering a report. However, I do not see how we can keep this without some actual information for what happened to the report after 2008. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moses

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Last played professionally in 2009. References are lacking. Statistically did nothing notable to merit an article. Alex (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N being a career minor leaguer. No current guideline automatically presumes notability for minor league all-star appearances, which was a point of contention in the previous AfD in 2008. Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mitchell (baseball)

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. He never reached the major leagues, nor did he ever play in any notable international tournaments. The only two external links fall under WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N being a career minor leaguer. Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Territory Studios

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

Contested PROD. Article does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG -- no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources yet. All hits are directory entries or job ads. The company has not released any games or received any media attention. Anticipating the argument that this is an indie studio or that other indies should be deleted too -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Additionally, employing notable industry professionals does not establish notability either -- WP:NOTINHERITED. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Seems like an advertisement article written by a staff member. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Dark_Territory_Studios#Deletion of this page:

Oppose- These studios are run by the youngest person in the gaming industry as well. These are a valuable studios. When you ask to cite the sources, what do you mean by that? Facebook pages, their official website & advert postings? Otherwise these Studios deserve a page as they are fast growing and soon are releasing a demo. I should know. Any questions regarding these Studios and need extra sources, ask me and I'll try and get some. SportingLisboaXI (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the introduction of Wikipedia:Notability and the first section "General notability guideline" (GNG). This is how topic notability is established on Wikipedia. It is very unlikely that a studio will become notable (in Wikipedia terms) and receive media coverage before it releases a game. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not verifiable. Being run by the youngest person in the industry might be a claim to notability, if it can be verified through a reliable secondary source. Facebook, official websites and adverts are primary sources. Hope that helps. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red House Farm FC

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

Never played in the National League System or in a national cup competition ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable club. Giant Snowman 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to passing NFOOTY. Szzuk (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Repeal Amendment

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

No evidence given of notability, no external references given, no likelihood of actually getting on the Senate floor, never mind passed into law. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No discussion on Google News Archive or Google Books. Four sponsors in U.S. Senate, and it would need 67 to advance. Not notable, at least now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no congressional action since introduction and only the four original cosponsors are cosponsors months later, can't locate significant coverage. Hekerui (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. No secondary sources, no significant coverage, non notable.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present simple continuous

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

The title of this page on English grammar, "Present simple continuous", is an oxymoron. In English the simple present is not continuous, and the continuous present is not simple (is not constructed as a single word).

The title phrase appears nowhere in the article.

The content of the article is already covered much better in Continuous and progressive aspects#English, in English verbs#Progressive constructions, and in English verbs#Simple present. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was originally a redirect to Continuous and progressive aspects, but since the title is meaningless, delete. TimBentley (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTHOWTO, plus the factual problems and duplicated effort described by Duoduoduo. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nibberish-gibberish. Clear lack of knowledge of linguistics, and Wikipedia prides itself on being factually accurate. Linguogeek (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title is simply not the name of any subject. A redirect from this title seems pointless. And the content is downright wrong, let alone unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Grant (broadcaster)

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

I am unable to find any reliable source mentions to help establish notability for this broadcaster/voiceover artist. The search is made more complex by the commonality of the name, in particular someone with the same name was involved with a company which specialized in voice over internet technology, so more specialized searches for the name + voiceover turn up many links to articles like this: [5]. If someone can successful turn up articles to establish notability I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. But my searches have failed to find anything in reliable sources about this David Grant. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs given are actually just URLs to the homepage of corporate websites and of no value. I looked on google news and found nothing, on the web I found a trivial mention to a DJ that might be him, hard to tell, it is a common name. Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the coverage offered is not sufficent to have this article. Courcelles 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel McDonald

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

Unsourced BLP. Prod contested. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant reliable source coverage. The only mentions I could find were passing references and the sources and not necessarily even considered reliable sources such as: [6] and [7]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a notable career. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER having played a significant role in notable works. And yes, the sections of Anime News Network controlled by paid editors is considered a reliable source. Good find. Dream Focus 03:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify those two references I included above I do not consider significant coverage. They are just passing references. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately, none of the coverage comes even close to significant--just passing or limited mentions. As such, this does not pass the GNG. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (i) little evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" & (ii) little evidence that participation in derivative works such as foreign-language redubs (which are generally not themselves independently notable) confers any notability, so would not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER includes voice actors. This person is a professional voice actor with a long and notable career. Its not just some random fool they hired to mindless read something without the proper emotion in it. Reviews of anime usually include comments on the voice actors, it a significant part of it. Dream Focus 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dream Focus for that bald WP:ITSNOTABLE statement -- just the sort of detailed, well-substantiated argument I've come to know and respect from you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I found and added two external links to interviews he did. Those interviewing him believe he is a notable "ADR Director, voice actor, and adaptive screenwriter." Dream Focus 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC) My mistake. Should've looked more thoroughly at the site before mentioning that here. No need to be rude. Dream Focus 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. No one, not even you, can honestly believe that an interview with the non-notable online podcast "That Anime Show" is a sign of GNG worthy notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the external links per WP:ELNO but they were quickly re-added. It is now being discussed on the talk page of the article: Talk:Joel McDonald. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to how involvement in a process as banally mechanical as "Automatic Dialog Recording" can be considered to be "notable" (especially lacking any reliable third-party sourcing). And no, interviews on a podcast usually don't meet WP:EL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links still offer information about the topic's subject. That has nothing to do with the AFD though, so lets please keep it on the talk page. Dream Focus 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is simple -- if you don't want it responded to on the AfD, don't raise it on the AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. The only source cited in the article mentions the subject only very briefly, and with reference to a future event. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Peridon (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peatbog Faeries

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

Non-notable band. The only non-trivial coverage to be found is a review of one of their albums in the publication Sing Out!. All other coverage to be found represents merely trivial mentions of appearances or activities of the band's members. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What are these then, scotch mist? [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].--Michig (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn My searching must be faulty, as none of those sources showed up when I searched. Nomination withdrawn. (Although the articles on the band and its albums really do need better sourcing!). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baw-hair

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

I have looked for quite a while, and have not yet found so much as an example of the phrase, "baw-hair," except on a few forums as a mostly humorous measurement (akin to a smidgen in UK/US English). All the interlang links are to articles on the millimeter, creating a puffery impression that this is a legitimate measure. If anyone can find just one citation for this, I will gracefully concede. Ipatrol (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a citation from the New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2006) confirming it is a Scottish expression meaning a very small measurement -- the width of a pubic hair, to be precise. The dictionary cites Michael Munro's The Patter -- Another Blast (1988): "That [hammer] wis a baw-hair aff stovin in ma skull." The article looks to be someone having a bit of fun, and anyhow, I can't see how it could ever be more than a wp:dicdef, even cited. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty clearly a joke, created by a SPA that I would bet works "in the offshore Oil and Gas industry." Cnilep (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite clearly a hoax. As for whether or not the creator works offshore, well, if so then it's good to see them engaged in such a creative intellectual pastime when off duty. (Preceding comment made by one who has worked in the offshore oil and gas industry.) --Deskford (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Symbol βh? I mean come on, this has to be tongue-in-cheek, right? Linguogeek (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Somebody is having a joke at our expense. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G7 by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs). I should note that the page has since been recreated as a redirect to List of Johnny Test characters#Dukey. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dukey (Johnny Test)

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

Lacks multiple reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Canihuan300 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC) (This also a better tag then the last one)[reply]

Delete, will most certainly be undone by fans if redirected. No secondary sources or out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already a lengthy bio about this dog in his entry on List of Johnny Test characters (and no, using thousand-dollar words like "deuteragonist" won't change my mind, a word not really linked out at all here). Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Author requested deletion [20]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-August/001171.html, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

We Love Colors

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

Business spam page that is being policed by an IP account which has reversed an attempt to despamify the spammy and non-standard "Press" section. Company fails notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. This page is clearly a piece of commercial spam. It has been heavily edited by IP accounts who probably love colors. I previously attempted to remove the massive and thoroughly non-standard list of press links but was reversed a few days later by........ one of those IP accounts. I was recently tipped off of this reversion by an email from an infrequent editor who, offended by the spammy and blatantly commercial nature of the page, tried to do the same thing. ClueBot did the work of the color-loving IP for them, owing to the editor's rights status and the fact that he was blanking a section. Well, I don't want to screw around any more, the top section is borderline in terms of inclusion-worthiness and the bulk of the piece is pure We Love Spam. A search of Google returns over a quarter million hits, which gives me brief pause, but the first five pages of returns (the cream of the crop) are advertisements, social media hype-a-thons, and a blog post or two. This subject company fails GNG for the lack of independent and substantial published coverage. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Step 3" of the manual deletion procedure instructions is screwed up. Following the instructions causes a duplicate listing to be entered on this page. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business making hosiery, leotards, and other dancewear. All of the references are apparently to illustrations in fashion related pages or spreads where one of their products was photographed. I don't think this reaches the level of significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to uncover any significant coverage in reliable sources. The dozens of links I have checked are all to spammy looking promotional sites designed to sell the product. I have been unable to find any coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable online fashion store. There is a German-language degree thesis that includes an 11-page case study of the company [21], covering its history, marketing strategy etc. (The publisher, GRIN, specialises in publishing degree theses, so it's not top drawer, but I think it will do for non-controversial content in an article like this). Feature in BellaOnline [22][23]. Multiple mentions in LA Times, Washington Post: [24][25], The Age, Baltimore Sun, Cool Hunting [26], Orange County Register, The Maneater, [27]. There seems to be enough for a short article, and a reception section. The article as it stands needs a lot of work of course, but in my view there is enough to meet notability. Probably of little interest to male readers, but a different matter for women readers and editors. ;) --J N 466 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many more famous brands do not have pages. I've never heard of We Love Colours outside of advertisements. Perhaps the brand might be notable enough when focussing solely on hosiery, but not for the broad scope of Wikipedia. Even if kept it has to be cleaned up and kept to neutral party editors, which it seems the main editor/s is/are not. SquishWaste (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. We are short on articles of interest to women as it is. I'm happy to do some work on the article to bring it in line with policy. but it may be a few days before I can get round to it. --J N 466 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I've asked for some outside eyes on the Gendergap list [28]. --J N 466 15:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Delete, the shop is not notable enough for Wikipedia - and i never liked canvassing of any kind. Béria Lima ^msg 15:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is blatant canvassing being conducted here by JN, who is incidentally the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case. At least it is transparent but it is still a clear violation of policy, I believe. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think running an issue past the gender gap mailing list constitutes canvassing; more like asking for more opinions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:Canvass:

Appropriate notification * * * Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.... * * *

Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. * * *

Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)... * * * Carrite (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - To the argument above that Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles appealing to women and that this article might be despammed, sourced out, and saved: that's fine. Do it if you can find the sources. The problem here is that this piece on a Miami company was constructed as a promotional device and is being defended from despamming by two Miami-area IP accounts. Blowing this mother away is one way to take care of the problem. Cleaning it out and defending those changes is another way. I'm not a deletionist or a big meanie about womens' wear — I just don't like spam. This must be fixed or nuked, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 03:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of trade unions in Indian tea gardens

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

Only red links. No references. The only purpose of this list seems to be in linking to the political affiliations MakeSense64 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs references, but that's not a reason to delete it. A quick search yielded some sources which I added and showed the subject is clearly notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated the article can be improved and needs references. But the subject is notable, and I cannot understand the actual rationale behind the nomination. providing information on the political affiliations of the unions is highly relevant (and to clarify, this is by no means controversial in an Indian context). Also, the point of red links is to foment participation in Wikipedia in creating new articles. --Soman (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I agree with Pontificalibus just because an article has no references doesn't mean it's not notable.-Breawycker (talk to me!)
Comment - Nobody is saying that the Indian tea gardens themselves are not notable. But that doesn't imply that there is reason for a "List of trade unions in Indian tea gardens" article, especially since it are mainly red links. Generally red links are avoided in lists, but if we remove them then all we will have left here is a list of polical parties in India. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, red links are more often made in lists as a way to organize article creation on the part of active Wikiprojects. Since the article was created by an amazingly prolific and substantial contributor to a number of related wiki-projects, including India and Labor, it is obvious the existence of red links is not a reason to delete. If it were some random editor who never edited in this space I would be less inclined to keep it in the current state, but Soman is a star wikipedian and I see no reason to belief these redlinks will remain for long. If they do, we can unlink them.--Cerejota (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List is clearly notable, even as per nom, other issues raised are editing, not inclusion, issues. If the nominator or anyone has a problem with red-links or lack of references, I invite them to create the articles and find the sources, rather than just nominating for deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remergence

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

Band article that of questionable notability (as judged by WP:BAND), no cited facts. References consist of their own site(main presence and blog), a MySpace page, their page at the label's site and multiple "music index site" pages with user contributed content. In short no independent, reliable, and verifiable sources on this page to support it's inclusion Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND, and WP:GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:BAND. You see, Ten Pound Hammer, some people do care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find anything beyond the usual database, primary and blog sources for this subject, never seems to have charted, seems to fail both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Яehevkor ✉ 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my A7 and prod. No sources. And "multiple albums" is not, per se, an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:BAND and I hereby invoke the snowball. ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think putting the Frozen Ice Sphere away for a while would be a sensible option. The nomination's existed for a little bit over 3 hours (as of this writing) and I think going through the full motions (with no foolery) would be a good thing so we can point at G4 to nuke the article should it come back Zombified. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero coverage, no hits, the label they're on has mostly only released records by this band. Article appears to have been written by the band.--Michig (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lot to be found on the web about this band, but it is all non-independent or not in reliable sources. I suspect that someone has made a lot of effort to raise the profile of this band, but I cannot find a single mention in a newspaper, for example. Maybe this: http://www.boostindependentmusic.com/artist/Remergence, but I think it is not independent of the band. Some independent reviews, even from local newspapers, would be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate any coverage to pass either WP:BAND or even WP:GNG. There are no claims of notability in the article either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Mt king ^(edits) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe I'm saying this but "per nom". I don't think Hammer should have edit warred over the CSD tag but he was right about one thing at ANI. If it weren't for that thread there would be a good chance I would be relisting this twice and closing it "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD will not be Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion because the consensus here is already clear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Aticle fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that an IP address objected to the PROD, the fact that this article was already declined a A7 exit, was the subject of an ANI thread, and has only been open at AfD for a little over 1 day that SNOW is inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, best do this one "by the book". Яehevkor ✉ 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep As per WP:SK, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." PROD disputed in talk as is procedure, no one has !v for delete except nom, and no reason given as per WP:DEL#REASON. Enough time has passed since nomination for it to be closed as SK - it seems the community considers the issues raised in nom not to be sufficient reasons to delete. Article quality issues raised should be addressed in talk and in editing the actual article. Cerejota (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of trade unions in the Singareni coal fields

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

Contested PROD. Creator of the article responded on Talk, but didn't give any good reason why there should be a list like this. No references, mostly red links, listing poll results of 2004,.. only purpose seems to be a redirect to pages of political parties. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated the article can be improved and needs references. But the subject is notable, and I cannot understand the actual rationale behind the nomination. providing information on the political affiliations of the unions is highly relevant (and to clarify, this is by no means controversial in an Indian context). Also, the point of red links is to foment participation in Wikipedia in creating new articles. --Soman (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that said, I would be ok with remaking the list into more of an article, like "Trade unions in the Singareni coal fields", with more detail and background complementing the list. --Soman (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the 2004 poll results and the red links then not much is left. Perhaps you can merge it into Singareni_Collieries_Company_Limited ? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a restructuring at User:Soman/temp. The election results are of interest in this context. I think the subject is notable enough for a separate article (which, amongst other things, allows for categorization in trade union categories). --Soman (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Dastani

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't yet played in a professional match. There have been several of these articles on young players in Persepolis F.C., and they keep getting re-created after the prod expires. Prod contested by article's creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. As he has not made his debut for Persepolis, he fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koljo Karagiosov

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

AfD rationale:

As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding a speedy delete 3 minutes after creation is not good. There are sources out there, but are in Cyrillic which is why you can't find his romanticized name via Google. Creator of article has created a few more today. I need to sit down later and research all of them to see if enough reliable sources can be found. Bgwhite (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: A lack of reliable references in Latin alphabet sources for this biography of a European person is a strong predictor of a lack of reliable references in Cyrillic. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree with your statement. However, I've rescued articles in the past like this. The author has added "references" to the article. Everything is in Bulgarian. Some of the references would be extremely hard to authenticate. I've asked some Bulgarian speaking editors for help. There is also some hanky-panky going on with other articles the author created, but will talk with Shirt58 about it elsewhere. Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completely disagree with that statement. Why would we expect sources in the Latin alphabet to be available for Bulgarians any more than we would expect sources in Cyrillic to be available for Romanians? Europeanness is irrelevant in this context, as, although most European languages are written in the Latin alphabet, some use Cyrillic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The Google translation of these two links indicates that this and the other similarly introduced articles are real enough, and the subjects notable . От светската суета до Бога, Кратка биография на Васил Карагьозов, Additionally there are multiple refs in the very long article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. A total hoax there is possible, but very unlikely. Nominating for speedy as a hoax in the presence of such an article in another Wikipedia, and in the absence of anything blatantly impossible, is not sensible. The speedy criterion is for blatant hoaxes -- a hoax that would need investigation to show a hoax is not a speedy. And my rather long experience here with biographies shows that the absence of sources on the googles for 19th century and early 20th century people is not a predictor of lack of notability , let alone lack of existence, As applied to a Bulgarian of any period , the absence of Latin alphabet sources on the Googles is a very dubious criterion; as applied to one in that period, It's nonsensical, even as a preliminary screen. I ask another admin to close this. I shall apologize to the author. Except that the articles were unsourced at the first edit, they did everything necessary, and seeme to have done it well (One thing I cannot check from available sources is the possibility of over-extensive paraphrasing) DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Calm down. The creator of the article added five new articles really quickly and all the articles had no reference. This is whatShirt58 saw. He added speedy delete to the articles but they were removed by an IP address that has only edited the five new articles. The AfD tag has been removed multiple times by the IP address. Shirt58 should not have done the speedy delete, but should have done a PROD first. With things being added and deleted, things got chaotic.

That being said... There are two external links on the page. I'm unable to see [29] as the entire site has a "timed out" error in Firefox. The second link goes into great detail about Vasil Karagyozov (Vasil Nikolov Karagiosov ), which was one of the five created articles. But I didn't find any mention of Koljo Karagiosov. The recently added references have Nikola Vasilev Karagyozov or Vasil Karagyozov in the titles. A couple of them are on-line, but they are PDFs of newspapers and Google Translate chokes on these. This is an example of the reference " Колева Елена, Колева Ивелина, "Кольо Василев Карагьозов - достойният наследник на своите деди", в-к Габрово днес, 21 юли 2011г., стр. 4" or the newspaper Gabrovo Today, 21 July 2011., P. 4.

Before anybody says keep or delete, could somebody please point out some references that we can translate into English. If somebody understands Bulgarian, could they please tell us about some of these references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to a strong understanding of Bulgarian, but I can read enough to see that the PDF that you linked has a whole page of about 2000 words about the subject published to mark the 115th anniversary of his birth and confirming pretty well everything in our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I just noticed the claim in the nomination that the article subject may still be living. That statement shows that the nominator hasn't even read the article, so this can't be treated as a reasonable nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator read the article, but added "and" and not "or", so it sounds funny when reading it. It should have said, "this person is a real person who lived OR may still be living but fails the general notability guidelines." The nominator could have written the nomination a whole lot better. There still is the question of does Karagiosov meeting GNG guidelines. (My writing can be alot worse). Bgwhite (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Or" is just as incorrect as "and" when there is no possibility that the subject is still alive. Shirt58 obviously failed to assume good faith when tagging this as a blatant hoax and then failed to reconsider that assumption when nominating here. If this is to be nominated for deletion then it should be on the basis of a good faith examination of whether it meets our policies and guidelines rather than such assumptions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've asked DGG to translate a source and I've asked some active members of WikiProject Bulgaria for their input and translation. It's been five days and all we have is one external link that doesn't mention him and one newspaper article that Phil Bridger says backs up the claims.

WP:NRVE states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." So we have one verifiable source. That is not enough to support a claim of notability. Is he even notable? He as a manager of a textile plant, German honorary vice consul and he donated money. A plant manager and a honorary consul do not have presumption of nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly provide a link the discussions with WikiProject Bulgaria people? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of notability is in [30] which Google translates very well, though it has to be done in sections. The pdf newspaper articles can also be handled by Google translate, by using Google's "display as html" feature. The page as a whole won't work, but a copypaste of individual article text does. Deleting a sourced article because one cannot read the sources is saying that whatever I personally cannot understand, does not belong in the encyclopedia. We normally extend a presumption of meeting WP:V to articles translated from articles in other Wikipedias, though this on rare occasions has been deceptive, especially when those Wikipedia articles have no sources or are obvious fan-talk. (The various Wikipedias use different standards of notability, and there have been articles in other Wikipedias not meeting ours, and , I believe, quite a few in the other direction. I have however never seen an article of this nature in another Wikipedia with extensive sourcing in that language that could possibly be a hoax, or an article of this nature that does not meet our notability standards. Contrary to the down-grading summary of his career in Bgwhite's comment just above, the article I linked to in this paragraph shows him as a major industrialist. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn _Talk Islander 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LC12

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

This article (about a roller coaster to open next year) seems massively premature to me, and against WP:CBALL. Although it's not badly written, it's mainly unsourced - verifiable facts come from one (primary) source (the planning application), and the rest is speculation. The term 'LC12' itself is only the project tag for the coaster. Once the coaster opens next year, I can see it being possible to write a decent article, but right now it is and can only be a mixture of facts directly from the primary-source planning application, speculation, and links to fan sites. _Talk Islander 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Once the article is deleted, however, LC12 should be redirected back to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 12, which is the original target of this title. Neelix (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In light of the official announcement of the ride, I have moved the article LC12 to The Swarm (roller coaster). I thought I would mention that here to clear any confusion. Themeparkgc Talk 08:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the article was nominated for deletion I have made several contributions to the article to verify all of its claims. At the time the article was nominated for deletion (old rev.), it featured only one source. Throughout my contributions today (diff), I have gone through the whole article to ensure all of the information in it is verified by some source (adding an additional 24 sources to the article in the process). WP:CBALL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" - in light of my recent changes, there is no unverifiable speculation in the article. Also the external links to fan sites have been removed per WP:ELNO. Hopefully these changes address the orginal concerns with the article. Themeparkgc Talk 08:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Themeparkgc has provided sources that demonstrate a sufficiently significant amount of reliable, secondary coverage of the topic. Neelix (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well-sourced and now updated with its official name. --McDoob AU 93 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think there's any question whether it should be kept anymore, as the main title has been updated from LC12 to The Swarm. Sporlo (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - a comment to keep the article has been placed on the talk page by ThorpeParkGuru (talk · contribs). Themeparkgc Talk 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - in light of the great job done by Themeparkgc, this article no longer fails in the ways for which I nominated it for deletion. _Talk Islander 21:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinner and Grammerians RFC

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

Notability. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant sources that are independent of the team. Any sources that are independent are minor references that couldn't prove notability. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete as WP:COPYVIO of [31]. noq (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the talk page permission for something is granted through OTRS. Without OTRS access I can't verify that the page Noq points out is the text for which permission was given, though the talk page history indicates that it might be. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah I missed that. However there are still no obvious sources that I can find, no claims to WP:notability and it is WP:original research. noq (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The team participates in the Herts/Middlesex 2 league [32] (Once on that link, click League Table and the team will appear in the table). This is a regional club league in the London & South-East division of England that is organized by the RFU. Regarding content. That which appears to be copyvio can and should be deleted, but the page itself should stand. --Bob247 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These guys may be grammarians, but the article author certainly isn't a speller. If this is kept it needs to be moved to the correct title, and in the meantime here are some more useful searches than the ones linked in the nomination: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. If you'll excuse my contributing some local knowledge (but with no knowledge of this club) I would add that this team's home ground is a municipal public park, which may have some bearing on notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the fact that they play at a municipal public park has a bearing on notability? Perthshire RFC is a notable club in Scotland that also plays at a municipal park. To the right is a photo of their pitch during the summer. you can make out the touchline in the bottom right corner. --Bob247 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that existence is notable? The content is a copy from the website - albeit one that has been donated this does indicate a WP:conflict of interest and WP:original research. I have not seen anything that show notability in the Wikipedia sense. It is a small local club with no claim to any historical significance - This is an article that is unlikely to become anything other than an extension of the clubs own website. noq (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a club that has been in existence for ~80 years and participates in an RFU sanctioned league and that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not notable? After signing in to LexisNexis, I have found significant coverage in multiple news sources. These include the Enfield Independent (November 25, 2010), the Cambridge Evening News (November 2, 2010), the Harrow Times (December 31, 2008), the Hertfordshire Mercury (March 30, 2007), The Times (March 8, 1997), The Observer (January 21, 1996), The Herald (Glasgow) (January 17, 1996) and The Independent (London) (January 16, 1996). I cannot post direct links to these articles as found using the the LexisNexis system as they won't work. However, looking at the archives of just one of the newspapers listed above I have found this and this and there is always the five listings here. --Bob247 (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general match reports in the local press are not considered the type of significant coverage required to satisfy the general notability guideline. When my son played association football for youth teams from the age of seven onwards match reports (usually written by the team coach, but without acknowledgement) were carried by the Harrow Observer and the Harrow Times, but that doesn't make those teams notable. I don't have access to LexisNexis, so could you please give us an idea of what coverage there is of this club in the national press articles from 1996 and 1997? Our article doesn't mention any significant events from this period, and I'm rather intrigued as to why a Scottish national newspaper would have significant coverage of a local rugby club from the London suburbs. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tracked down the article in The Herald. How on earth can you claim that it contains significant coverage of this club? It doesn't have any coverage whatsoever, let alone significant coverage. As the articles in The Independent and The Observer are dated within a few days of that one I strongly suspect that they are either syndicated copies of the same article or similar reports quoting the club secretary about an issue unrelated to the club itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue discussed in the observer is that of the RFU organisation. The article also states the involvement of the secretary of Pinner and Grammarians, who would not have been involved had it not been for his involvement in the club. The byline in the he Times September 23, 1998 talks of the clubs inability to win a game in the Tetley's Bitter Vase. Yes, the club has had no feature length articles in major news magazines, but I posit that 80% of the clubs listed in Wikipedia are in the same situtaion. If this article is deleted, then most of the articles describing rugby union clubs should be deleted for the same reasons. In this vain we will have no coverage of any clubs outside of the top tiers of rugby union. If that is the consensus, then sobeit. I will leave a note on WP:RU (which should have been done by the nominator through simple courtesy) for members of that project to have input to this potential precedent. --Bob247 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of noteworthy rugby teams play in public parks/shared grounds. I can think of several in Edinburgh which do. Unlike soccer, we don't tend to have massive stands, and millionaire players are thin on the ground too.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage of this club has been found apart from a handful of match reports in local newspapers. The claim made above of significant coverage being found via LexisNexis is a clear case of misrepresentation, so can't be accepted as evidence of such coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a member club of the RFU, has a long history within rugby, plays in the official leagues and has produced a member of its club into the role of the president of the RFU. I believe that there shouldn't really be an issue any longer of copyvio after a rewrite and cites have been added where ever it was possible. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in a good stste now and well worth keeping. The fact that a club member becam president of the RFU makes it pretty notable. Calistemon (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - old club, and has provided president of the RFU. Anyone who thinks Google is a reputable academic source needs their head examined. (If people want sources they should start looking OFFLINE as well, e.g. in rugby almanacs etc.)--MacRusgail (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Theaker

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

Promotional piece created by subject. Prod removed by subject. Non notable violinist who has received no coverage in independent reliable sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: few independent reliable sources with a few very minor mentions in each (name & violin). --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO or Redirect to Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, where he is currently Associate Concertmaster. Lack of nontrivial coverage by independent reliable sources seems to indicate that, while Theaker is likely a very talented violinist, he is not yet a notable one. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rising*From*Ashes. Well stated. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger James Hamilton

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

No evidence of notability; loads of self-published and non-RS. zero hits in Google news archives. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article Wealth Dynamics should probably share the same fate as Roger James Hamilton. Either there is enough notable content to merge the two articles (with removal of all the self-promotion), or they should both be deleted. Peacock (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wealth Dynamics if sufficient sources for that can be found, delete both otherwise. Notability claim seems to be derived from there. —Kusma (t·c) 10:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled his name and found nothing but hundreds of puff links. Nothing in Forbes, WSJ, etc. where I would expect to find business-related coverage. Same for googling Wealth Dynamics. XL Group is now a different company. Couldn't find him in Worldcat ID either. Can't see any notability due to lack of trustworthy third-party coverage. 75.60.17.100 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jimbo. Pure puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the editors working on the article left this message on Jimbo's talk page just before this AfD. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything substantial at all on Google News, Books, Scholar, Finance, or through a general web search. A lot of PR stuff, but nothing really independent that had any real detail. Wealth Dynamics will probably also need to be deleted, I couldn't find anything for that either. Silver seren^C 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article Possible merge of Wealth Dynamics to List of Ponzi schemes It appears that Wealth Dynamics has been investigated as a scam, [33], [34]. Google search for wealth dynamics scam yields 3,110,000 results. Just a note for neutrality, I couldn't find anything about "Wealth dynamics" at http://www.scamwatch.gov.au Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can understand why it would have been delicate for Jimbo to do so, but this would very much qualify for G11 speedy. — Coren ^(talk) 11:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, per Ryan Vesey, and I too also suspect Wealth Dynamics is promotional moonshine as well. That article proposes a murky mixture of Taoism and personality profiling as the new way to Make Money Fast, so it really isn't surprising to find it being investigated as a Ponzi scheme. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And I really tried to find something notable. Collect (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 UK Global Heat 2000

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of sporting results with no evidence of notability to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination; there are no indications of notability in the articles and this is a fringe sport Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Articles lack sources and are just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Phonetic Alphabet

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

This article is about a jocular spelling alphabet. It's largely original research with no references to reliable sources. Contested PROD; page's author has since added only links to more personal blogs and self-published humour websites. Psychonaut (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to have a little more substance than the nominator says, but still far from the secondary coverage needed. Borock (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Henry Troup is attempting to locate a reference to this from the late John W. Campbell in Astounding, but it is a challenge. Also requests for expert assistance have been initiated with the Comedy and Languages Projects. Please give them time to provide assistance before the article is deleted. Mr.Atoz (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt even this reference would be sufficient to establish notability; we don't generally have articles on individual linguistic jokes. There are entire journals devoted to recreational linguistics (e.g., Word Ways) which catalogue language oddities, games, and thought experiments of this sort, but it's rare that any of them would be individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess the exception to this would be the Who's on First? bit. Mr.Atoz (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That one is much more famous. Borock (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research, albeit funny original research, and not really notable like typoglycemia. Linguogeek (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to close the debate and accept the fact that the article will be deleted. Mr.Atoz (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dzec

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

I recently removed some copyrighted text from myspace, but anyway, this biography has no indication of importance. Minima © (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article (before it was stubbed) gave no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. It has no independent sources and searching is not producing any. January (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bovey Tracey A.F.C.

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A team playing in the Premier Division of the SWPL is notable. I should know, my local team plays in it and has entered the FA Cup in all but two seasons since 1950. Bovey will be entering the FA Vase this season I believe. The one red link is because Camelford haven't played at level 10 (also known as Step 6) until now. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see in your comment any evidence of notability of this team. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at this AfD, involving one of the articles that you have recently nominated. There is consensus there, and among multiple other AfDs, that English clubs playing at level 10 of the English football league system are notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clubs playing at Step 6 in the pyramid have always been deemed notable. See this very recent AfD. Number 5 7 08:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW as the previous AfD quoted demonstrates notability. Keresaspa (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Nominated by only contributor Courcelles 07:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Cecins

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

Insignificant information provided - empty article Guyf22 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubated. v/r - T P 14:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Stevenson

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

Article is too short. No evidence of notability apart from few movies. Really not needed unless article can significantly be increased in size and notability can be established. Ruth-2013 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep page will get more information when theo stevensons new film comes out the day after this AfD. I will work my hardest to try and find any references and info till then EastBelfastBoy (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But surly wp:Crystal applies here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know whether or not the subject will become notable or not. Sure he will have had one famous movie how do we know he won't vanish after that. The page can be re created if he becomes notable. However my advice would be if you can find any references to help your case add them to the article now. But be advised not to remove the afd tag. Any extra references you could find would only help your case for a keep vote. The only other issue which has now come to light is the theo stevenson page was created by a user now banned for vandalism(Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: He has been active for 4 years and was in 3 other movies so he won't 'just disappear' after this movie. think of the millions of people who have created pages and are now banned for vandalism. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userfy as he IS getting a great deal of media coverage in England [35] for his starring role in Horrid Henry: The Movie. As the coverage exists in advance of the film being released, WP:CRYSTAL is far less applicable than is proper consideration of WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I now agree with this, I have just stumbled on press coverage for this person due to new movie, there is as of today seams like plenty to be going on with to make the article OK. While the article don't meat the high standards of wikipedia now because of coverage there is a possibility it could soon (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Strong speedy delete. This violates WP:CRYSTAL. It should only be created when a future event comes current. So I will request a strong and speedy delete to this one. StormContent (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is about a person, not a future event. Chzz ► 05:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a quick look, there appear to be enough sources to show notability - [36] [37] [38] [39]. (I'm not certain enough to !vote, at this time, but perhaps these links will help others to improve it) Chzz ► 05:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks to have been in a few films. Szzuk (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSurely User:EastBelfastBoy vote on this deletion discussion should now not be counted as EastBelfastBoy has been blocked according to his userpage. Also this discussion should really be re listed after the current week runs out as someone messed about with the AFD tag at the top of the article. Because of this people may not have been able to find the AFD (Ruth-2013 (talk))

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peru v Scotland (1978)

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

I don't see what makes this game particularly notable as opposed to any other group stage match at the 1978 FIFA World Cup. The result was something of a "disaster" for Scotland, but so was the following match, a 1–1 draw against Iran. There weren't any records set by this match. Objectively, it is just another routine World Cup group stage match. The format established at other World Cup articles is that there are articles about the group stage as a whole, rather than an individual match in that group, to prevent the main tournament article being too long. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable match. No records were broken, nothing extraordinary happened, WP:ROUTINE. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable about this match. Giant Snowman 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move: This match is notable for both Peruvians and Scots, as demonstrated by the references. This match may not be significant in other countries, but that does not remove its overall notability for both Peru and Scotland (hence why it's "low" on the WP project football scale). Quoting the Scottish website: "We had such a good team and it was an absolute nightmare result. I’ve been to every Scotland away game since 1980 and I don’t think any compares for sheer disappointment."
- It should also be noted that no article exists for Group D for the 1978 World Cup. Deleting this article would erase all of the information currently on it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person's quotes are referring to the tournament as a whole. Scotland could have lost to Peru but still qualified by winning the other two matches. Instead they drew against Iran (which at the time was a bigger shock than losing to Peru, eg BBC article describing it as a "humiliation") and were eliminated on goal difference despite winning against Holland. Regarding the second point, you could move the article to 1978 FIFA World Cup group D and add comments / statistics for the other five matches in the group. The point is that the match does not merit a standalone article on the grounds of notability. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but, unfortunately, the article still needs to satisfy WP:SPORTSEVENT. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is the information to be deleted instead of moved? I'll move it myself, but I won't add any of the other matches (which the rest of you interested editors can add if you want).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completly unremarkable and non-notable game of football. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This match is not notable at all. Fwiw, I do feel a little bad for Scotland fans, though. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fireflys

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

Unreferenced article, written by the band's agent. No assertion of notability per WP:BAND; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This from a local newspaper appears to be the only coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am not the bands agent at all , i used to manage the band 4 years ago, i dont even talk to them anymore, but thought it fair that they should at least have a wiki page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethtyler (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Chuklin

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

WP:Notability The cited motor racing series for this driver is comparitively or very minor, with one of them not even worthy of an article in English wikipeida. Falcadore (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Racing in Formula Renault NEC does not make a driver notable enough. Winning the championship? Maybe. Winning races? Perhaps. A best result of 12th? No. - mspete93 11:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are very few drivers from Russia in professional series so I'm sure each of them is very important for Russian and European motor sport. Should we delete articles about all other racers competing in FR 2.0 NEC? For example, Alessandro Vita Kouzkin. Besides, Chuklin is going to take part in Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 which is more prestigious and well covered than FR 2.0 NEC. - Olegbv(talk) 12.00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Category:Russian racecar drivers points out quite a few Russian race car drivers. Simply being Russian and a race car driver does not make one notable, no matter how many or few of his countrymen we have articles on. Also, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existance of articles on other drivers such as Kouzkin does not establish that such drivers are notable. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article should be kept due to WP:BASIC and WP:CARES - there are enough reliable and independent secondary sources connected with this driver; and there are some motor sport fans and professionals who find articles devoted to novice racers important. Chuklin's career is unique for FR 2.0 NEC: he is currently the oldest racer in the series. - Olegbv(talk) 6.40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually go and read the sources, they don't look as good. The only real ones are in Russian, but having a bio on a site dedicated specifically to Russian racing doesn't confer worldwide notability. The mentions in the others are trivial or in results lists. Delete. LRT24 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Besides, Kouzkin probably has an article because he competed in International Formula Master, which was more notable than FR NEC, as a European-wide championship with European-wide live television coverage as well as directly producing GP2 drivers. And competing in Eurocup FR still won't justify notability. - mspete93 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- My final argument to keep the article would be a reference to WP:NSPORTS: "Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they have driven in a fully professional series", but unfortunately the clarification of the term "fully professional" ("fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series") is unsatisfactory: many fully professional motorsport championships (for example, DTM), especially in Europe, have no significant prize money. I raised this issue in the guideline's discussion, because FR 2.0 NEC is a fully professional championship. Olegbv(talk) 07.20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

- Any series where the majority of drivers not only are NOT paid sallaries, but have to pay their racing teams and bring budget to their teams to compete is very definately not a professional series. So in a sense you are correct but not with respect to Alexey Chuklin. You could succesfully write an article on Chuklin's team as a professional outfit, but Chuklin himself would fail a professionalism test. The notability belong to Chuklin's team, not to Chuklin himself. --Falcadore (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not wikipedia's role to anticipate future notability (WP:CBALL). If Alexey Chuklin is going to become notable at a later date then the article can be re-started then. Right at the moment Chuklin is not a notable driver. he is currently the oldest racer in the series, which actually counts against him being notable because it makes him less likely to progress to bigger series and make more notable achievements. Additionally your point about Alessandro Vita Kouzkin merely suggests that perhaps he should be deleted as well.

there are some motor sport fans and professionals who find articles devoted to novice racers important. Wikipedia though does not share this belief. Wikipedia demands a standard of notability that Chuklin does not meet. WP:ATHLETE --Falcadore (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A minor driver in a very minor racing series with nothing to establish notability yet. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As 359 says, and relating more specifically to the notability guidelines, there is no significant independent mention in reliable sources that I can see. None of the English language references given do anything other than mention the guy's name. Of the two Russian sources, one (the only source of any length) is a press release on behalf of the driver and the other is a very short piece noting that a third Russian (Chuklin) has joined the series. At present the article cannot be anything much more than a list of results. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 10:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloxwich United A.F.C.

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - competing in the FA Cup this season, which is usually considered sufficient to confer notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In qualification? Is it sufficient to notability? Did it played in main part of FA Cup? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup has always been deemed sufficient in the past -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a horror! :) Confirming links? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This recent AfD should suffice. Number 5 7 08:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FA Cup participation. Number 5 7 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be good, if in the articles about cup qualifications there were always links to existing articles about clubs - so will be better check notability speedy, using "what links here". --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it's my opinion that sufficiency to notability to participate in FA Cup qualification only is too soft approach to notability. But if this approach is really widespread, I respect this opinion of wiki-community. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even teams from the Conference National, many of which are full-time professional clubs with 10,000+ seat stadiums, have to enter the FA Cup in the qualifying rounds. It's not like the qualifying rounds are reserved for pub teams playing in the local park...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know these facts. And I have no doubts in notability of Conference National teams, naturally. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parley Sports F.C.

AfDs for this article:

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club has never played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase, which are the standard notability critieria for English football clubs. Number 5 7 08:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as established in past AfDs this club is not notable due to not having played at a high enough level and just keeps being remade by LUIGI909. Delusion23 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 10:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brache Sparta Community F.C.

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clubs that have played at Step 6 in the pyramid have always been deemed notable. See this very recent AfD. Number 5 7 08:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It comes down to adequate sources being found on the retention side versus the failure of those sources to meet the adequate notability requirements on the deletion side. After three weeks of discussion, neither side has been able to achieve any consensus here. –MuZemike 06:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kixeye

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

Not notable. Only 6 hits on Google News, all press releases. All citations are to wikis, facebook or primary sources. Only secondary sources are two technology blogs whose reliablility I'm not too convinced on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move and redirect as per Talk:Kixeye The company changed names so an editor created a copy instead of doing move with redirect --DeVerm (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure anymore what is happening with the move(s). I see log entries as of July 24 which is today?! Anyway, references 1, 6 and 9 look okay to me so I am changing to Keep. These guys made enough games to have become notable. The references to Facebook are to their Facebook-games, not some obscure Facebook source. --DeVerm (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- They're still primary sources. Having a large repertoire means nothing without secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary sources? Techcrunch article written by Leena Rao, genuine journalist and paidcontent.co.uk article written by Patrick Smith, also genuine journalist. Both have their bio linked from the articles. I think these two sources are secondary and they seem reliable to me also --DeVerm (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. (As DeVerm). ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion and page move discussed on Talk:Kixeye has already occurred. ctzmsc3|talk 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted to allow for discussion about the actual grounds for deletion. The "move" opinions above are mistaken, as Casual Collective has already been moved to Kixeye. Sandstein 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company does not appear to meet the WP:Company notability requirements. Although there a over a dozen citations in the article, virtually all are to blogs, internal company-produced material, or press releases. Absent independent 3rd party sources, it should be deleted. The "move" discussion above is confusing, but apparently the company goes by two names: Kixeye and Casual Collective , and the latter is a redirect to the former. Regardless, they should both be deleted, unless more sources are presented. --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; I don't like the idea of an article not existing for a video game company while at least one of its games has one, but this company really doesn't seem to be very notable at all. I've seen many games, companies, books, bands, people, etc. with many thousands of Google hits but no Wikipedia article. Tezero (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company has clearly established itself as notable and has developed multiple popular games. Drawing conclusions regarding its notably on "Google hits" is foolish and unfair. Dylan2448 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's additional coverage [40] in Techcrunch besides the stuff cited here. But, I'm concerned that they read like thinly veiled PR pieces. ~~Not a single genuine product review for a gaming company?~~ FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Desktop Tower Defense has more references, about half of which cover the company rather than the game. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) And they have WSJ coverage [41], which not something the average videogame gets. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the common-sense basis that a company which has developed notable games is notable DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yeah, real solid arguments there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The argument that it is notable because it has notable products is one of Notability is inherited. Mtking^(edits) 04:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you disputing the significant coverage brought forward above? --DeVerm (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)You surely didn't take a close look at the articles:

Etc. Of course it's normal that journalists introduce article topics by relating it to something that the reader already knows about. But those articles are primarily about the new company, not their previous products. Clearly you misunderstand NOTINHERITED, Mtking. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the company has significant coverage in the last section of this Gamasutra article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they have about as much coverage as Second Life has in PC World's Social Gaming Guide. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough references here. In fact, I'm going to add some now. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recently raised $18M in venture capital, have a number of games with millions of active players: 5 August 2011

Google News Search
Washington Post: Social Game Developer Kixeye Raises $18 Million, Adds Zynga Co-founder Andrew Trader To Its Board
Wall Street Journal: More Funding for Hardcore Facebook Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capncleaver (talk • contribs)

Note: The WaPo piece is simply a syndication of one of the Techcrunch articles already mentioned in this discussion, but the WSJ piece was hitherto not mentioned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business page press releases announcing that financing has been sought and granted are routine coverage that does not constitute significant coverage to support a claim of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but those articles do not meet Wikipedia's definition of routine coverage, which you link to. By your standard, which is not (or no longer) included in the guidelines, any product review is routine coverage, because product reviews commonly appear in magazines, therefore no book/software/whatever that has it's WP notablity based on that is valid. Your POV was rejected at WP:NBOOK recently. And the articles discussed about this company are not even routine product reviews, but unique journalistic pieces. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

dont delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.78.115 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn Courcelles 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Jones

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

Whitney Jones and the following tennis players all fail WP:NTENNIS. All were created by the same editor. Editor created other tennis player articles, but they pass WP:NTENNIS. While some of the tennis players did win $10,000 tournaments, none won a $25,000 tournament. Alizé Lim did play doubles in this year's French Open and lost in the first round, but did so as a wildcard entry. Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete All - Totally lacking WP:RS coverage to support meeting WP:NTENNIS criteria, or meeting WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{14:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alizé Lim, who meets NTENNIS because she played in the main draw of the French Open. Whether she qualified for the main draw by rating or wild card isn't relevant; the criterion is meant to exclude those who played in the qualifying draw but did not advance to the main draw. Don't know that bundling players with clearly different levels of possible notability was a terribly good idea; there's a procedural keep case to be made. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alison van Uytvanck played in main draw of Brussels (WTA Premier) and 'S-Hertogenbosch (WTA International) after qualifying. So, she clearly meets NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nudnida Luangnam has played Fed Cup and also played in several main draws of WTA main tour events. Clearly meets NTENNIS. Did you research all the players you are nominating here? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Conny Perrin played in main draw Birmingham last month, meets NTENNIS. Galina Fokina played in main draw WTA Indian Open in 2004, meets NTENNIS. Tara Iyer, several main draw appearances in main tour events as a wildcard. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW the nominations. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that none of the alleged facts presented here have been added to any of the articles, and they all still lack significant WP:RS coverage of the subjects. — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WTA and ITF websites are given and they are perfectly fine reliable sources. The articles are horribly written. The creating editor doesn't appear to familiar with WikiProject Tennis guidelines. While researching tennis for this nomination, I found WikiProject Tennis to have wonderful guidelines and help. Most tennis articles are much better. When submitting the nominations, I only focused on players not winning a title. They all played in the main draw of a WTA tournament. The French open has exception for the top French tennis players. In 2011, the top 30 French Men and the top 25 French Women played. So, under current guidelines, almost every French tennis player is notable. Wimbledon has done the same for English players in years past, but I think they changed things this year. For Prerna Bhambri, she is Indian. All ranked professional Indian players were granted exceptions for the Sunfeast Open, which was played in India. Personally I think it comes down to is that tennis notability guidelines WP:NTENNIS allows any player who has a tournament played in their country to become notable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to exclude players that have only been in a WTA (or ATP) tour main draw thanks to a wildcard. It's something that can be proposed for WP:NTENNIS. But by current guidelines most players listed here satisfy NTENNIS, even though the articles are poor. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Our inclusion list at the wikiproject tennis is far too inclusive for my tastes but is really no different than everyone they let into Hockey and Cricket articles from what I understand. I may have to bring it up as you make a good point about wildcards in India. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing of note. Remember that there are dozens and dozens of professional tennis tournaments that don't qualify for notoriety simply by entering. See the ITF circuit...mens ITF calendar and womens ITF calendar. Only if a player WINS a $25,000 or above ITF professional tourney does that qualify them for wiki inclusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Grand Prix 2000 Oceania

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

another non notable sporting event that gets no coverage in gnews or major Australian search engine trove [42]. fails WP:GNG. seems like the Australian media forgot to cover it. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable independent sources and appears to be routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic logic

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

The article appears to be about the pet theory of Stephen Palmquist. He's appropriated a standard philosophical term, synthetic, for his theory, but his theory seems to be studied only by him. This is a contested prod; the reason given for declining is that this term receives a large number of hits in Google Scholar, but none of the hits I looked at before nominating the article were about this theory. Ozob (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obscure, but there are 3 ghits in Scholar for Palmquist "Synthetic logic". We ultimately should have an article on all forms of "synthetic logic", or a dab page and several articles at disambiguated forms of "synthetic logic" (like Synthetic logic (Palmquist)), but for now I see no reason to delete. It should be tagged for needing expansion, and it should be noted on the talk page that it should probably be merged or moved in the future as the current topic does not appear to be the primary use of "synthetic logic". --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Of the three hits mentioned above, one is an article by Palmquist himself (not an independent source) and the others, although they cite an article by Palmquist, do not contain the word "logic" except in the bibliography, and don't contain the word "synthetic" at all. So it looks to me as though this topic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jowa fan (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, clearly non-notable. Should not be confused with the other meaning of synthetic logic which is obscure-ish but probably notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In keeping with WP guidelines, one must presume the best intentions, and looking at the history of this article I do not see evidence its creation was a vanity project. There are many scholarly articles that characterise various logics as 'synthetic' (including logic used by Kant). In addition, the basic definition given in the article seems to characterise a reasonable number of these logics. I agree with Born2cycle (above) that the article simply needs expansion, not least of all in the references. I am certain a reasonable attempt at this could be made in an hour or two. Indeed if those of us who have commented on this deletion had rather spent the time expanding the article, it would already be an unassailable 'Keep'. 2.97.115.56 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Kant's synthetic logic but an entirely unrelated logic by Palmquist which can be mechanically transformed into classical logic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is titled 'Synthetic Logic' not 'Palmquist Logic'. Synthethic Logic has been developed in a variety of ways by notable philosophers (such as Kant & Alain Badiou), and academics (such as Alex Djalali and Christopher Potts of the Stanford Linguistics department). Why not just remove the Palquist material (if one insists), revert the article to a philosophy 'stub' and then rewrite it to take into account the other various (notable) theories. This *is* Wikipedia after all. We don't delete just because something better can be made of what exists. 2.101.19.102 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you please re-read all of the opinions being expressed here? As it stands, this article does not even remotely meet the standards of WP:Verify, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability. If you are able make edits that would bring the article into compliance with those standards, then you should do so (that's one reason why these deletion discussions are scheduled to remain open for a minimum of seven days). — Satori Son 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRGreathouse. —Ruud 10:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability, per Jowa fan above. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I would have suggested 'Merge into Stephen Palmquist' as an alternative, but it looks like that article's going to be deleted as well.) Robofish (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. This logics theory does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article provides three references, all of which are self-published. (Full disclosure: I was notified of this discussion because of my recent participation in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist.) — Satori Son 14:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Palmquist

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

Contested prod. This academic does not appear to meet the standards of WP:PROF. As far as I can tell he has received no major awards or honors, nor has he made a large impact on his chosen field (philosophy), nor has his non-academic work risen to the level of meeting the GNG. Ozob (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a published author and there are 150 ghits at Scholar for "Stephen Palmquist". The first result is a book he co-authored, "Kant and the new philosophy of religion", which is cited 11 times. The first citation is in the book, "Transcending boundaries in philosophy and theology: reason, meaning and ... ", which is at google books[43], and can be searched for Palmquist. The reference is on p.79. Unless someone shows that all these references and citations are somehow bogus, I think that makes him notable per WP:CREATIVE. But, then, I'm biased. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how he meets WP:CREATIVE any more than how he meets WP:PROF. His work hasn't been the subject of an independent book or feature film, isn't a significant monument or in a museum's permanent collection, etc. All he might qualify for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"—which is what WP:PROF is trying to measure. I do not think the bar set by WP:CREATIVE for this type of subject is any different from the bar set by WP:PROF. Are you saying that you believe he is a notable academic who does meet the standards of WP:PROF? Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the book in question is not Palmquist's research, he is one of two editors. Also, the use of WP:CREATIVE instead of the far more appropriate standard WP:PROF is very strange (and I agree with CRGreathouse below that he does not appear qualify under WP:CREATIVE). --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For justifying use of WP:CREATIVE here, see #9 at Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria which states: "The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." Also, WP:CREATIVE explicitly states that it applies to "..., academics,..., professors, ...". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To which of Palmquist's contributions to literature, music, arts, etc. are you referring? As far as I can tell, he seems to be defined entirely by his academic philosophy work, for which WP:PROF is the most appropriate standard (a standard he does not meet), and by his political activism, which, says the article, has resulted in ... an academic philosophy book. I do not understand how WP:CREATIVE is relevant, nor do I understand why you think he is notable. Ozob (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in other words, "writer" in WP:CREATIVE means "writer of fiction or literature" -- typical academic publishing of articles and non-fiction books is quite clearly not intended, whereas WP:PROF is specifically designed for this purpose. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:CREATIVE criteria are met by Palmquist. Just because someone is an academic does not mean that the only notability criteria they can be judghed on is academics. Anyway he may actually have effected his discipline enough to be a notable academic. This is a very difficult to determine area. Since those who study philosphy tend to cite the works of philosophers and not the works of scholars studying philosophy the number of citiations to Palmquist is actually more encoraging that it would be in other fields where citing others works is much more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same question for you as I do for Born2cycle. See above. Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nomination has not convinced me that the encyclopaedia would be improved by losing this entry. Skomorokh 08:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears not to meet WP:CREATIVE -- I would appreciate information to the contrary. But I don't know whether he qualifies under other guidelines. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Palmquist has published ~30 papers since becoming a professor in the mid 80s, but these collectively show a grand total of only 20 citations (h-index 3), which seems low for WP:PROF #1 even for philosophy. FWIW, this may simply be a vanity page because there's lots of WP:OR, and it was tag-team created by 2 WP:SPA accounts: Gosihaha and Stevepq. Agricola44 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete?. A GS h index of 5 is too low, even for philosophy, to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. WP:GNG does not seem apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. No evidence this person has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple, reliable published sources. — Satori Son 04:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF as shown by Xxanthippe and Agricola. Publishing is what academics do, so that does not make him notable either. WP:CREATIVE is certainly not appropriate in this case. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. —Ruud 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The Google scholar citation numbers certainly aren't high enough for criterion #C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Vegetables

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

2 element list based on a single source. Insufficient reliable sources to expand beyond here. RadioFan (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PUTEFFORT. Two items is not a list. It's not even trying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:2S. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros conspiracy theories

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

This is a content fork of the George Soros article - essentially "all the nutty unsubstantiated stuff people have said about him." Most of it is clearly against WP:BLP policy - "So and so accuses Soros of ..." without any substantiation, i.e. it is just repeating smears and gossip. The part on the Prime Minister of Malaysia is already included in the main article, the rest is just plain accusations without support. Smallbones (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article seems to me to fall under WP:WELLKNOWN in that the "nutty unsubstantiated stuff" is sourced and presented as opinion rather than as fact. the few items which are not sourced can easily be deleted, although I didn't notice any really egregious unsourced statements presented as fact. there seem to be enough nutty things said about george soros to justify a separate article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WELLKNOWN deals with a "multitude of reliable published sources" not a multitude of unsubstantiated opinions. The sources cited are essentially primary sources in this context - the opinion itself. Smallbones (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, well done. Far better to farm out the fruitloops factory from the main biography page... Carrite (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I don't think that is a valid argument. I'm tending towards 'delete', but there might be a case for arguing that the exisence of the Wolraich article [44] suggests that 'Soros conspiracy theories' is a topic in itself that has received attention from secondary sources. I'd suggest that those who wish to keep the article try to find some more sources of this type - not articles about (supposed) conspiracies involving Soros, but articles about the 'Soros conspiracy theory' phenomenon as a topic. We don't need articles (or sources) by fruitloops, but articles about fruitloops... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page absolutely must be viewed in the context of the article George Soros. Either one clogs the main article with a big, messy "criticism" section, which gives undue weight to the crackpots of the world and turns the page into a battleground, or one farms out that material to a sub-page such as this one. That's a perfectly rational reason for a "keep" for a well-sourced article like this one. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no. I voted keep because the dangerously bad content was removed. But content forking is a bad idea. It doesn't protect against the underlying problem of there being too much attack material about a subject, it just isolates it. That only serves to make things worse. The editors who like contributing the nuttiness have a less-watched place to do it. Not a good idea. i kan reed (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, well maintained, I don't see the problem. --Tarage (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or remove all unsourced "conservatives say". Long winded vote, but some of these things are ENTIRELY innapropriate per WP:BLP. There should be absolutely zero weasel words in an article that serves only to list disparagements against its subject, refutations notwithstanding. Some of this could be downright actionable slander as currently written. Being "well-known" is no protection against the BLP concerns mentioned in the nom. That's not to say there isn't compliant material, and a fixed article is better than a deleted article. i kan reed (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming the offending material I removed stays removed. As it stands now, the unsourced attack statements are mostly gone. i kan reed (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment excellent work!Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says, in the title, that it is about "conspiracy theories" and the content is sourced. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article or book by a journalist does not establish WP:NOTABILITY. My suggestion is to explain Wolraich's views in an article either about him or his book. TFD (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I do support forking out BLP violating weight of notable content when it gets overly large but this content wouldn't stand any chance of addition to the BLP and it is nothing but speculative titillation here, its not encyclopedic content and shouldn't be hosted here. Conspiracy theories about (add your favorite person here) no no no. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - contains all the usual nutbar crap that we find in articles on birtherism and other conspiracy theories, and the theories are extensive enough nowadays to justify an article, rather than just a footnote. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (fully disclosing that he's contributed to one or two of the groups that anti-Soros folks point to with alarm)[reply]
Keep per Orangemike (see a disclosure on my user page re: Sierra Club, etc.), WP:ODD, and WP:FRINGE. However, I'd prefer it to be edited down, e.g the analysis section is pure synthesis, or needs to be in the lead. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP - anything notable can be given due weight on the main article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These type of articles always, without exception, become coatracks and fester largely unnoticed in the dark corners of Wikipedia. There are so many bad articles left to clean up or purge, we shouldn't add any more. More to the point here, repeating unfounded (and often slanderous) rumors is a violation of WP:BLP, regardless of whether it's attributed to "critics claim", "some have argued" or any of the other tortured WP:WTA phrases used. If the material isn't appropriate for the biography, why would it be appropriate in a poorly-written content fork? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources to establish notability. Notable delusions merit their own Wikipedia articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grandaddy discography. v/r - T P 14:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle Seat 37-D

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia has a lot of album articles that are nothing more than track listings, and make no assertion of their importance or influence. This is even less. i kan reed (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy discography. Again, redirecting to a useful page with more information is a better option than deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only if that information is particularly relevant. I generally oppose redirects that don't actually discuss any detail about the subject matter. It annoys the heck out of me when I click one. i kan reed (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Teuber

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

Non-notable crime victim; one in a series of victims that received publicity in the 1930s but does not meet the criteria of WP:CRIME. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deltete Although this is a sad story, every murder victim's story is sad. Fails WP:VICTIM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a noteworthy crime, one that is both unsolved and pertinent to the history of both San Diego and Balboa Park. The murder was the subject of a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers. As the crime was murder, there is no statute of limitations, meaning that the Wikipedia article is helpful to both historians, genealogists, and persons interested in the crime and its details.

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is filled with persons such as MelanieN who search for means to delete work that worthy contributors have made, rather than making substantive contributions themselves. Her self-description as a veteran administrator is, of course spurious, as are any other attributes she has chosen to decorate herself with. It is really sad that persons with little talent in writing choose "deletion" as a means of demonstrating their authority on Wikipedia. The truly significant administrator works to aggregate well-written & pertinent articles rather than remove them. The designation of a topic as "considered for deletion" is also poor terminology. Even before a writer is informed that his/her work is under review, there is no chance that it will remain.Robert (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I realize you are upset that your article was nominated for deletion, and so you are angry at me. But this is not about me, it's about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. (In fact, if you looked at my talk page, you should have seen that my philosophical preference is to "rescue" articles rather than delete them - when they meet Wikipedia's criteria, as I believe Louise Teuber does not. And just to be clear, I am not an administrator.)
You are mistaken that there is "no chance" an article will remain once it is nominated for deletion. If you look at some of the discussions at WP:Articles for deletion you will see that some are kept and some are deleted, based on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which have been developed by consensus over many years. The criterion for articles about crime, victims, and perpetrators is quite high: "For victims: The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[8]" Louise Teuber was a murder victim in a year during which there were several murders of women in San Diego, none of them ever solved - but that does not give her historic significance as far as I can tell. Incidentally Louise Teuber has nothing to do with Balboa Park; it was another woman, Hazel Bradshaw, whose body was dumped in Balboa Park - and I can't find that the crime(s) had any lasting effect on the park, or on San Diego.
If you wish this article to be kept, you need to marshall arguments that are directly related to Wikipedia's criteria. How did she affect the history of San Diego? Where is the persistent coverage that devotes significant attention to her? You have listed several Los Angeles Times articles on the page, but it might help if you used them to verify specific things in the article (in other words, in-line citations) rather than simply listing them.
Various people will be weighing in on this discussion, people who are concerned with maintaining Wikipedia's standards as well as keeping worthy articles; their arguments will be based on Wikipedia's policies and practices, and so should yours be. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes wp:crime. also per Robertg9 reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM (a.k.a. WP:CRIME). I have to admit that this is a very intriguing case, but WP:VICTIM says that a victim "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if ... the victim ... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." I tried a Google search on "Louise Teuber" but was unable to find anything but a bunch of lists, trivia sites, and copies of the Wikipedia article. I'm just not convinced that the available source material establishes the level of notability required for this sort of article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I very often support article like this, because the rule is normally applied much less strictly to historical than recent figures. However, this is not a significant historical figure in any sense at all, and I see no evidence that there is any coverage later than the time of the murder. If there is any to be found, I would think differently. I endorse Melanie's explanation, and I urge Robert to look for subjects that have wider sourcing. I urge him very much to remain a contributor--there's nothing personal in having an article one has written deleted, it's happened to most of us, myself included. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is evidence that her death changed forensic analysis, or started an organization to stop such crimes, or caused an annual remembrance day in the area that lasted longer than usual (or some other significant event), I dont see her being notable. I could see her death noted in an article on such crimes. She deserves, of course, to be remembered, but we can't start that here. Im not happy writing this, but i dont see any way around our policy on victims, given the information we have on her.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:VICTIM, or that there was significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the crime or its investigation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and change emphasis -- I spent some time looking at the references. This case was sufficiently notable that a young man, a criminal wannabe, confessed to her murder. There were additional references to her murder in following years as additional murders and additional false confessions. She was believed, at the time, to be a victim of a serial killer, a sadist, who raped girls and women before killing them. I believe that while coverage of Teuber is on the border of notability, coverage of the series of murders is notable. Geo Swan (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Various books do publish a bit about these unsolved murders, and they got ample news coverage at the time. Perhaps instead of just one victim, have information about all seven murders. What to call it though? SAN Diego, California, unsolved murders 1931-36 or The unsolved murders of... can't really think of a decent name of this. Perhaps list all unsolved murders or groups of murders, and then break them into separate articles based on how they have been categorized together by the news coverage and crime historians. Page 330 and 331 have a bit about this in The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes By Michael Newton. Other books cover it. Enough coverage found about to make some decent articles I think. Dream Focus 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from what I read at WP:VICTIM, it does seem as this approach would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's style: to have an article about the series of murders (if they are found to be notable), and just redirects from the individual victims. Like Dream Focus, I have trouble thinking what to call the article and who it should include. IMO it should be limited to the four girls and women who were assaulted and killed in San Diego in the spring of 1931; the article lists them as Virginia Brooks, 10; Louise Teuber, 17; "Diamond Dolly" Bibbens, age not given; and Hazel Bradshaw, 22. While the murders may not actually have been connected, it seems that they became linked in the public mind. The 1936 Los Angeles Times article refers to "seven" unsolved slayings; since no link is provided I can't tell how closely linked the seven are. It would require quite a bit of research to put the article together. If someone is willing to undertake that, the current article could be userfied to them for reference. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is inherent, deleting is similar to deleting history.Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Inc.

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

Delete. The subject does not meet the general notability guidelines, or topical notability guidelines for bands or composers. Songs written were for subject's own albums, released under the subject's own label; soundtrack was composed for a film for which the subject wrote, produced, directed, and appeared. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. While it appears that the article is supported by references, the quality is seriously lacking. Sourcing does not meet the threshold for significance, reliability, or independence. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found more links for Mr. Emil Inc.

RHAPSODY http://www.rhapsody.com/#/artist/emil-inc/albums
RHAPSODY http://www.rhapsody.com/#/search?query=emil+ink+
E-MUSIC http://www.emusic.com/artist/Emil-Inc-MP3-Download/11683381.html
CD UNIVERSE http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7224365
ITUNES http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/emil-inc/id178856482
LIKE http://www.ilike.com/artist/Emil+Inc.
TOWER RECORDS http://www.tower.com/emil-inc-cd/wapi/106214031
ITUNES http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/man-on-the-throne/id399108962
CD UNIVERSE http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1218147/a/Works+Of+Ink,+Vol.2.htm
KAMR NBC TV http://myhighplains.com/fulltext?nxd_id=11281
GREAT SONG FR. http://www.greatsong.net/PAROLES-EMIL-INK,THE-MUSE,100691933.html
AMAZON UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emil-Inc/dp/B001FSXUFS
YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1f_iGNLZpU
AMAZON FRANCE http://www.amazon.fr/Emil-Inc/dp/B000G1T0KE/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1311583865&sr=1-1
AMAZON GERMANY http://www.amazon.de/Emil-Inc./e/B001LHXOKO/ref=ntt_art_dp_pel_1
ALLMUSIC http://www.allmusic.com/album/emil-inc-r844035
AMAZON USA http://www.amazon.com/Emil-Inc./e/B001LHXOKO
BILLBOARD http://www.billboard.com/#/album/emil-inc/emil-inc/783982
KAMR NBC TV http://myhighplains.com/studio4fulltext/?nxd_id=201777
KAMR NBC TV http://myhighplains.com/studio4fulltext/?nxd_id=201767 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.13.69 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those links you added (if not all) are for sellers (i.e. spam), are repeated, and are not reliable sources (most fail ELNO). Can you please point out (and provide sources to the effect) which of the numbered points in band notability requirements it meets? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Alexf, I was just trying to help with more links. My bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.13.69 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was happy to see that there is an Emil Inc. page on your site. I was going to create it myself one day. I have been Emil's fan for 3 years now, ever since I've heard his "Works of Ink 2" record. Then I saw him live in Dallas Texas, after that I was hooked. However it came to my attention that this page might be deleted. I'm not sure why. Please let me know what I can do as a fan to help you keep this entry on this site. I made a couple of changes on his page, I hope its okay. There were a couple of mistakes that I have corrected. He just did a show on the local NBC channel about a month ago and it was amazing. I watched it live on TV. I will send you a link. Nice interview and a great performance of his songs. I took this link from KAMR NBC archive pages (myhighplains.com) Here it is, please watch it:

http://myhighplains.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=201777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainfantastic3 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of notability, the only argument in favor of keeping it seems to clash pretty hard with WP:ELNO and WP:ILIKEIT. Not to mention, the article's pretty barren as is anyway. I read it and felt like I learned little to nothing about this musician. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable media coverage. All the links provided on the article are simply Amazon, iTunes, and music download websites and those websites don't provide a solid biography...just the listing of his music. No good sources were found on both a Google and Yahoo! search either, SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found enough links and information about this artist on google. Just google EMIL INC. There is an interesting link I found about his film

http://www.shortfilmcentral.com/person/1627/

Response to above Just because they are mentioned there doesn't mean the article is notable, as media coverage helps maintain notability on the subject. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist even has his music listed on BMI, I say it's a definite KEEP. Check this BMI link:

http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=MINASYAN%20EMIL%20L&querytype=WriterID&keyid=707301&page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&affiliation=BMI&cae=350624191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.13.69 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment The verifiable career certainly seems prolific, and I note that WP:NMUSIC's WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:NMUSIC#Others offer criteria that may be used to define notability even if not the subject of significant coverage. Perhaps the article's defenders can show which he meets? Or perhaps they may be willing to work on improving the article off of mainspace? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above I understand sir, I think the best one that he meets is WP:NMUSIC#Others (Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.13.69 (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is awesome!

Delete. No evidence of the level of notability specified in WP:BAND. Please understand the difference between "notability" and mere popularity / talent / "awesomeness". Also please read WP:RS, WP:INDY, and related material on what sources are, or are not, useful for use in Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zendo USA

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

Minor college organization, apparently limited to one college DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail the Club guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zendo USA is a genuine and compassionate charitable organization. They offer martial arts, meditation and opportunities to achieve enlightenment for people from any and all walks of life. They are giving and are listed as a charitable 501C3 organization. I am happy to see them listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alykash4 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a new organization with a lot to offer. Why don't we give them a chance to bloom and make a lasting contribution to the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.45.98 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is based on established notability, not what might happen in the future. You might want to look at WP:CRYSTAL. Astudent0 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and many of the references are not independent sources. Some don't even mention "Zendo USA". Astudent0 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. If the article is kept, be advised there are parts of the article copied from the organization's website resulting in WP:Copyright Problems. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:CLUB. No indication of notability and lacks significant reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lam

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

Completing unfinished nom for IP. Only one source, dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question is NOT notable.60.52.44.25 (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National news anchor for many years, as the obituary says. Other sources refer to him as a "renowned orator and public speaker".[45] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another source discussing this Malaysian TV newsman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Walker

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

Minor actor with a minor role in a TV show and a few commercials. v/r - T P 03:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal career[46] fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megan and Liz

AfDs for this article:

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

Simple YouTube artists. Do not meet WP:NMUSIC. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only non-trivial source is local news coverage, everything else is YouTube, Facebook, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also: all albums are self-produced and distributed by their own label. Majority of article is promotional, and majority of references are first-person (twitter, tumblr, etc.) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. I dunno. There were discussions at the earlier AfD's and a discussion at the WP:MUSIC talk page and so forth, the question being whether or not WP:MUSIC is accurate anymore or needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. I don't know if that was ever decided. I do know that WP:MUSIC doesn't require a given sales level of 8-track tapes or 78 RPM records for an act to be notable, so maybe it's sufficiently up to date. Anyway, it appears that this duo has a lot of the markers that we generally associate with notable acts:

The have millions of fans, or hundreds of thousands of fans, or some large number of fans, however this is manifested and however difficult it is to count them.
They have had a regional tour in the United States. (This was once one of the WP:MUSIC criteria but has been removed.)
They have appeared on Oprah (albeit briefly and not as featured guests).
They have opened for bluelinked acts.
They are part of the music "scene" generally with bluelinked acts, hang out with them, appear on stage with them and in their songs and videos and so forth.

And they seem to be sticking around, having been at this for about four years now. It's true that they don't have the traditional WP:MUSIC marker of two albums on a major or important indie label. On the other hand, they sell their songs directly through amazon.com and itunes so they probably don't feel the need to have a label and an album. If it was 1982 they probably would have been signed by RCA Records or whomever by now. And they have millions of YouTube hits. Whether that matters I don't know. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok...
  - Number of fans is irrelevant.
  - Touring is irrelevant.
  - One appearance on Oprah is irrelevant.
  - Opening for a notable artist doesn't make them notable.
  - Who they hang out with is irrelevant
  - How long they have been in the music industry is irrelevant
  - It's cool "they probably don't feel the need to have a label and an album". That's part of the criteria to be in this encyclopedia.
  - "If it was 1982 they probably would have been signed by RCA Records or whomever by now." Please read WP:CRYSTAL.
  - YouTube hits are irrelevant.
  - Please read the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Also, please see how this act accomplishes none of the criteria. Thank you. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree that all this is irrelevant. It's information. Whether it's useful information or not I can't say. But let's not say it's not information. It is. Regarding WP:NMUSIC, it's a guideline, not a policy, and as such it proclaims at the top that "...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Does an exception apply here? Maybe. I've raised the question whether WP:NMUSIC's reliance on albums-with-a-major-label remains up-to-date; I'm not sure. Maybe it is. I wouldn't say that "number of fans is irrelevant", though. What if they had more fans than the Beatles but just chose not to record albums but instead put put videos and sell individual songs through downloads? I dunno. On the other hand their dead-tree media coverage seems nonexistent (although they do have some amount of online-zine coverage, which may not mean much). So they are pretty borderline in that sense. I mean, you have a point. My gut feeling is that they're probably notable enough to have an article, but it's hard to prove. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's the point of having a guideline if you don't follow it. If we were more dismissive with the guideline, we might as well let every Tom, Dick, and Harry get an article. I'm sorry, when it comes to notability, the aforementioned factors are irrelevant. They do not deserve an exception. It takes a lot to get around this guideline. And to respond to the fans thing, your getting into crystal ball hypotheticals. If they did have that many fans, there would be media coverage on it. I don't see it as borderline. I see it as not worth the bytes. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 20:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not even going to try and search for mentions on Yahoo! or Google because if they're YouTube artists> As well with common names like Megan and Liz, the chances of notable sources being found is second to none. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MUSIC, seems like wikipedia isnt up to speed with the whole Youtube era yet.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, it doesn't pass it...--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of opinion. Which part of it does it pass?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found where they pass WP:MUSIC! Others-5: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." They are prominent representatives of the YouTube subculture. Here's another article that calls them YouTube sensations: [47] Moscowconnection (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strat copy

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

Despite all the chit-chat, synthesis, original research, and pontification in the article (none of which is verified), "strat copy" simply means "copy of a Stratocaster". Whatever is notable about the topic of copying Stratocasters should be in Fender Stratocaster. As for a merge--I challenge you to find relevant and verified material in here worth merging... Drmies (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could easily find dozens of passing mentions in reliable souces. But no significant coverage. It seems guitar enthusiasts know what the phrase means, but don't discuss it in any depth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, "cheap strat" is what it means, Cullen! (Not that I'd say no to one, of course--if they send me one I'll withdraw this AfD.) Drmies (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 35 years ago, The Tubes, in their classic song I'm Proud to be a American, identified "cheap guitars" as one of the foremost sources of the greatness of the U.S.A. Who can argue with such logic, Drmies? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 10:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard

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

declined prod. no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. nothing in gnews and google mainly reveals event listings. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage under its other name "UFC Fight Night 9" as explained in the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about coverage in non fighting sources? LibStar (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my line of reasoning the last time you asked that question? If so, look here. (And the admins kept that article.) --TreyGeek (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT as multiple independent sources are available to support the notability of this event. I have tried to discuss with the nominator what I believe is a misunderstanding of policy as part of similar AfD debates, but could not get a constructive discussion going to illustrate that martial arts journalism can be "independent of the subject" when the subject is an event (since an event is not the same as an entire sport). I believe the keep consensus for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger provides a good guide for interpreting this nomination because of the similarities between the events and comparable amount of third-party coverage. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covers the same ground as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger --Nate ^t/_c 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is a lot of confusion on whether or not a martial arts event is notable. To begin with, WP:MMANOT states that individual events are not notable. Even though I would delete this one, I disagree that there should be a blanket ban every event. I would propose the following guidelines: Events that meet WP:GNG are notable. (This would require coverage outside of martial arts sources) Events are notable if a title is at stake. Finally, if a group of events are qualifiers for a notable event, such as in a tournament, they are notable as a group. Otherwise, the just aren't notable. Lets be honest, UFC 9 was entertaining, but it doesn't matter. No titles changed hands, no one died, the matches are not the defining moment of any of these fighters lives. We need to have a community wide discussion where we discuss exactly what notability should be for Martial Arts (that doesn't consist of a slugging match between people who think that every match is noteworthy and people who think that no event is "encyclopedic") , but until we do I'm gonna say delete on this one--Djohns21 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMANOT suggests that individual events are not automatically notable. This is intended to prevent arguments consisting of UFC XXX or Pride XXX is notable because it is a UFC or Pride event. Events will be notable if they pass WP:N and WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was actively involved in the drafting of and discussions concerning WP:MMANOT, I can say that TreyGeek has it right. Anything that passes WP:GNG and is adequately sourced can be on Wikipedia, so the discussion was really about things that didn't obviously pass WP:GNG. The point is that an event only be notable if something happens that makes the event something besides another routine fight night, regardless of who's promoting it. The desire to establish MMA notability guidelines was triggered by AfD discussions, primarily those concerning the notability of fighters. The Wikipedia MMA community did reach a consensus on notability and it's WP:MMANOT. That doesn't mean things can't be changed, just that it should only be done by consensus and after discussion. As far as martial arts goes, that project also has a set of notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say the article lacks sufficient reliable independent sources and, more importantly, appears to just be routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaadietya Pandey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaadietya Pandey (2nd nomination)

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

Survived an earlier AfD in 2006. Page still has long term issues and notability is questionable. Google search yields nothing significant, and there seems to be no page in Hindi about this entry. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : 1: lacks adequate citations 2. doubtful notability.FeatherPluma (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are a lot of references in Times of India that support notability claim. Wikid ^as© 07:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaadietya. — Satori Son 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of ANY notable mentions, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No reliable sources independent of the subject confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete there seems to be too many problems with this one. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrol LeBaron

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

This is not a biography of an individual, but coverage of an upcoming documentary of unknown notability. Please consider whether this page should be moved to Honor in Office (documentary) or Honor in Office Act, or deleted until either of those become notable. As a side issue, the author has a conflict of interest, being a representative of Commlines Media, who are paid by Mr LeBaron to promote his business inktip.com (see [48]). TrulyBlue (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed guidelines and understand the discussion/argument on whether the entry should be closed and moved to Honor In Office. After looking specifically at notable, I concur that the Jerrol LeBaron entry should be moved to Honor in Office (documentary) and, at a later time, should it be appropriate, a new entry for Jerrol LeBaron created. Commlines —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move As the article really isn't about Jerrol LeBaron it should be moved to Honor in Office (documentary) and Honor in Office Act if enough resource can be gathered to show notability.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:PEOPLE. Also, if this material were to be merged or moved to a hypothetical "Honor in Office" article, it would require serious work in order to satisfy WP:NPOV; the existing article is unacceptably strongly biased in favour of the proposal. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SALERO

AfDs for this article:

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

Ephemeral project. While some of the results may be worth of inclusion in the appropriate articles on the subjects of this project, the project itself is not notable. There's one article about it, as well as some in-passing mentions elsewhere, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to object, there's much more than one article on the projectes, there a number of scientific publications at different conferences and different journals. See http://www.salero.eu/en/resources/index.html (I agree, that some of them should be added as references to the article) Kig8472 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry (I see you also removed the "dead link" tag in the article), but for me that link just goes to a placeholder page and does not contain any info about this project. As I said in the nom, the results that some project participants published my be interesting to add to the appropriate articles, but there's nothing special otherwise about this project of which there are thirteen to a dozen. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Two of the references in the article go to the same placeholder page. Judging from the titles, they are presentations by a project member at a scientific meeting.Presenting at a meeting (except if it is something like an invited plenary talk) is nothing out of the ordinary. That publications resulted from the project is normal, too. The project's members are academics and publishing is what academics do. In analogy to our guidelines for academics, just having publications is not what makes one notable. It's the interest that was generated by those publications, if any, that generates notability. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the links to the placeholder page, I fixed them, they should work now. Kig8472 (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the links. That some of the participants reported on their work at meetings is to be expected. Apart from they themselves, nobody else seems to have written about it, though. --Crusio (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Looks like a pretty broad and international project. [49]. Could use some extra sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The language here is slightly better than some others, but is still not very informative, and misuses the word ontology (apparently actually meaning a format for data): The project investigated the production of digital content to cross-platform, re-usable media and provide "intelligent content" for games, web-animation, movies and broadcast. The SALERO project team aimed to create ontologies for describing media content and vocabularies to produce tools for creating and managing multimedia objects and for re-using them in different contexts than the ones originally defined. Unless something more came of this than a handful of papers in obscure computer science journals, I don't see this as notable. Note also that impenetrable articles about European research projects are a recurring problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the use or misuse of the term "ontology" in the subject's field, see ontology (information science). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into coverage by a summary sentence under the Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development#The_programmes, as has been done for other such projects. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more secondary sources, but minimum requirements of notability seems to be met. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulating Space Device (ASD)

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

Article about a fringe technology which will open up the conquest of outer space by means of a satellite "accumulating various atmospheric gases, liquid and solid substances". I wonder why nobody thought of that before? Unreferenced, of course. Only 4 non-WP ghits. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS andy (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: On further inspection the article seems to be based on a misunderstanding of an apparently feasible, if somewhat dodgy, proposed technology that is referred to in Alexander Mayboroda - an example reference is here. There are some question marks over Alexander Mayboroda as well - written largely by the same author, containing the same wild speculations (10,000 tonne satellites?) and possibly also COI. andy (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we will have to delete as well the article Alexander Mayboroda as (nearly?) everything that its creator, Ivan.sychev108, has added to various space-related articles, as it clearly does not live up to Wikipedia:Notability. Ivan.sychev108 has not yet reacted to several requests from editors after his partially excessive edits. We are not urged to accept anything out of sheer politeness. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no referencesCurb Chain (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several references for PROFAC, including the British Institute of Spaceflight journal. The IEEE gives us another variant name PHARO—Propellant harvesting of atmospheric resources in orbit and Google Scholar gives one of the several PROFAC papers as well as the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System. Though the article content is at present a little off, it could easily be referenced and improved. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the very limited references to PROFAC, this article goes way beyond that into the realms of fruit-loopery. There ain't no such beast as an "Accumulating Space Device". andy (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit-loopery :¬) It is a little more down the line of WP:NEOLOGISM I think that perhaps renaming with a descriptive title that better than this one, or merging it to another suitable article are probably better than deleting it out-of-hand. If you like you can userify it to my user space if the vote is delete and I will chop it about and find suitable homes once refd.

"Orbital harvesters that collect propellants" is a bit of a mouthful though. I will look for any NASA references to the topic. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking as if the only refs from NASA are to the [MHDs]. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, It is nice to meet you all here. You may all have various thoughts about this topic which is normal. But i suggest that you get a bit more patient so that i can find more reliable references...i am new to it..not like you..and of course it takes time to get it right. Some of you may have an interest in space-related topics etc etc...but first of all you have to realise what you are deliting...it;s not a big deal to delete. Get an expert to get into this Mr Dyson, Louis Friedman etc etc. These guys have been closely affiliated with the Planetary Society..they know a lot about these projects.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chaosdruid, thank You very much for Your additional information about what I call Accumulating Space Device (ASD). All your references will be included in the article as soon as I have some spare time. The thing is this term (Accumulating Space Device or Космический аппарат накопитель (КАН)) has been accepted and used in Russian patents and russian publications. I dont mind if you can offer a better term fot it. It is very nice to find out that within your circles of Wiki editors there are some knowledgable and competent specialists in space-related topics. I am also working on creating a Russian version of Wiki Article regarding Accumulating Space Devices. But I dont have much time for it...soon it will be ready. hopefully. Dear Chaosdruid, please, could You tell me where I could make a complaint about some of the wiki editors who brake the rules of discussions and offend creators of wiki articles in advance without bothering to get the drift of what is being written (created)? thank you very much for Your help kind regards from russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No evidence of notability, and no sources provided. The PROFAC/PHARO concept may perhaps be notable (see the IEEE paper cited by Chaosdruid), and a completely rewritten article on that topic may be a keeper, but it is not clear that any of the present content would find a place in such an article. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, reads like bad science fiction.--Djohns21 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gentlemen, all it needs is a modification for which i have not had time yet cos i have been busy with my first article. Another thing is that somehow or other I JUST CANNOT INSERT ANY REFERENCES in it.. it seems like the system has gone wrong or something...There are already a number of references inserted in the text (but not in a proper way unfortunately). So please, help to put them properly.

If NASA and organazations like the British Interplanetary Society are not authorities for you and if things they speak about are not notable....I feel really sorry for you. thank you [[Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Feelers / Zed (band). Whilst a Merge would be technically correct that is likely to leave unsourced or practically unsourced BLPs lying about until someone familiar with the material merges them, thus redirecting to preserve the edit history so that they can be merged without this problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Gee

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

This person is not notable on his own, any information here could easily be included in the pages for The Feelers. Nik thestoned 10:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasoning:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

Comment - Looks like an obvious merge into The Feelers indeed. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Nikthestoned invited me to comment again after adding two more names of similar artists) - Andy Lynch seems to have somewhat better credentials, as he seems to have been active in several other notable bands, and perhaps a source for the "award-winning" can be found.. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he hadn't, MakeSense64, since it's now in danger of becoming a bit of a trainwreck. I'd suggest upmerging the one for the Zed musician, but not the two for the Feelers musicians, who are probably notable enough to stand alone. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it appropriate! Can you provide your reasoning for why Hamish and James stand up on their own? From the pages as they exist now I can see no reasoning, unlike the one you have suggested merging... Thanks, Nik thestoned 11:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I'm leaning towards keep,~~ the radio ad that's currently running calls them New Zealand's most successful recording act. I forget what the actual ad was for. They have a new album out soon? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to respective bands I've had a further look and I'm failing to find stuff about these guys that isn't mainly about the band they're famous for being part of. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here substantiates a claim of individual notability, and I doubt anything here is sufficiently encyclopedic to justify merging to The Feelers. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AFD has run sufficiently long to develop consensus and it hasn't. Reading the comments, all opinions for delete or keep are weak with editors not even feeling strong enough in their positions to !vote. v/r - T P 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Wallace

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

Fails WP:ARTIST; has only minor, local notability; article unsourced since 2008; no significant sources found on search. MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from nominator: The "bibliography" lists seven items, but they are all books about Balboa Park; there is no evidence that they say anything at all about the subject. A Google News search for "Ginger Wallace" and "art" finds a few calendar-type listings and one book review, but nothing substantial. Google finds no reliable or independent sources. Flagged for notability since 2008. Article is written in highly promotional style, apparently written in 2008 when her book was being featured at the Museum of the Living Artist, and has been virtually untouched since then. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: On the creator's talk page there is a "speedy deletion" notice for Ginger Wallace, dated Sept. 4, 2008. The current article was created 17 October 2008, so it is possible that this is a recreation of a speedy-deleted article. Would that (if true) make it a candidate for speedy deletion now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think probably delete as appears non-notable (but then I know nothing about the art world). I Googled "Ginger and Robert Wallace Day" (referred to in article) and indeed the local council proclaimed such a day. However, this was only for one specific day and not an annual thing, and the council appear to make many such proclamations. More background on Wallace at this obituary (she died last November). --89.157.132.227 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article makes more of a claim that she is notable as a patron/philanthropist; I agree she is probably not as a pure artist. Leaning towards keep on that basis. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for adding the information about her death, and the obit, to the article. Unfortunately the obituary, cited from legacy.com and credited to the San Diego Union Tribune, is a paid obit, as can be seen in the U-T archives - meaning it is not an independent reliable source, it was written by her family. If she was so prominent, it's odd that the U-T didn't run a staff-written obit about her, but I searched the U-T archives every way I could think of and couldn't find one. Her family makes a good case for her notability, but I was not able to confirm much of it. Founder of the Klee Wyk society? That would be important but I couldn't find any verification. Namesake of the annual "Ginger Award" from the San Diego Art Institute? Their website doesn't mention it on a search. The San Diego City Council names a "day" for someone hundreds of times a year. Bottom line, I still regard her notability as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess a paid-for obit is at least an RS for birth & death dates. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I found a reference to the Ginger award! Having an award named after you is a good step toward notability. That puts me in the "weak delete" category. Is there more? --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to point out that "local notability" can be enough to serve the purpose of Wikipedia. It helps to have national or international press to establish notability. But depending on the sources local coverage should be considered.SunRiddled (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that "local notability" can be sufficient if there is coverage from multiple reliable sources (preferably regional sources rather than purely local, but the "multiple" requirement usually covers that). But I'm just not finding the coverage for her. I'm still troubled by the lack of a staff-written obituary in the San Diego Union Tribune, or anywhere. If she was really notable, either as an artist or as a philanthropist, the U-T should have done an obit as a matter of course. And I couldn't find significant coverage during her lifetime either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisardo Guarinos

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

Article about an actor and singer that lacks sources. Couldn't find any reliable secondary or third-party sources, only questionable, potentially self-published sources appear in English language (I count imdb.com and amazon.com/mp3-download in this category, too). In the 8 blue-linked articles about telenovelas listed in the article he is mentioned in 4, but wikipedia cannot be a reference to itself. Per ~~WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:INDEPENDENT~~. A PROD has been deleted by an anonymous IP without a summary. Ben Ben (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have found sources in the Google News archive in Spanish language. Two of them in Google translation: [50][51]. Not sure if this makes him notable as an actor or is it WP:NACTOR?--Ben Ben (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, using the German version of Google to translate Spanish into English. The internet is great. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Ben Ben (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The first article by Ben Ben does appear notable. I see the exact same text in other places too. Here is the official site of Alma de Hierro that lists him as a cast member. Here is the official site of Cuando me enamoro that lists him as a cast member. At least I think they are the official sites. I say "Weak Keep" because I'm not entirely sure that these are indeed notable sites because of my lack of Spanish skills. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the first link by Ben Ben, there are a couple of soap opera and gossip blogs with articles about him, and also this article, although the site doesn't seem reliable. I was actually expecting to find more than that since soap opera actors do normally receive a fair amount of coverage, but there isn't anything coming up from the major Mexican newspapers, and from Spain's I only get a few mentions of his name as part of the cast for plays he's participated in, so overall I think there isn't enough coverage to be considered significant. On a side note, both links by Bgwhite are indeed to the official sites, since esmas.com is the official internet portal of Televisa (the broadcaster), so they should be good for verification purposes - frankie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Verifiable career meets WP:ENT.[52] Just as with many actors, he began with minor named characters in several notable notable productions. These led to 4 episodes of Palabra de Mujer as Hernán Gil and 3 episodes of Alma de Hierro as Diego Galindo. Then his career blossomed with 123 episodes of Corazón salvaje as Federico Martín Del Campo, followed by 173 episodes of Cuando me enamoro as Agustín Dunant. These are not the beloved shows General Hospital or One Life to Live of Estados Unidos Norte, but notable in and to Mexico is just fine for en.Wikipedia. Expansion and sourcing are a matter for regular editing by interested editors, and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allumera

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

Non-notable cosmetic product with no significant coverage in third-party sources. Zero results in Google Scholar, and the only Google News results are reprints of a press release. The article is referenced with scientific studies that are about this type of treatment/product, but not the specific product itself. (Please note that the article was speedy deleted as G11 several months ago, and the current article was deprodded by its creator.) SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the article creator (Medisinmannen (talk · contribs)) has a possible COI, as the majority of his edits are related to Photocure, the company who makes Allumera. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: "(Please note that the article was speedy deleted as G11 several months ago, and the current article was deprodded by its creator." That delition was for other reasons than you use.

Keep The reason for I write about Photocure is my interests for Norwegian biotechnology and Photocure and PDT in special. I also have interest in other Norwegian biotech companies like Algeta, Diagenic and PCI Biotech but I do not have time and the knowledge of this companies. I think you should focus on the article and don`t make conspirational theories about me and if I have a COI. I do not have anything to do with Photocure and Photocure has nothing to do with anything I write.

I have no problem if the article is deleted because of the quality of the article. But if it is deleted because of the deletion of the old Allumera article and because of my interest in Photocure then I think you are way off. Medisinmannen (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (soft opinion) Performed some edits to clean up the article a bit. FIRST current potential problem is the complete absence of WP:RSMED. The present citations simply do not meet those criteria. However, is this product to be held to that standard? Product seems to fall between a medical standard and "just any cosmetic." SECOND (related) problem is that the reasoning behind WP:RSMED is to prevent overzealous promotion of products for which data is weak, which it IS here (unless there are some sources?), as stated by nominator. THIRD problem is that the WP article doesn't seem to be adding real info compared to the commercial site itself. In aggregate, does not meet WP standards.FeatherPluma (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allumera is a cosmetic product. The clinical trials do not meet the medical standards and the product is not approved or do need to be approved by FDA despite some media claim that Allumera is approved by FDA. In my opinion the WP article is adding new info compared to the commercial site because it states more clearly that Allumera is a PDT product. If it meet WP standards? I cannot say but I hope so :)Medisinmannen (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You're only allowed to vote once. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Telecom

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

The article is written like an advertisment and is entirely unsourced. I could find many companies with similar names covered in the news, but not this one specifically. WP:GNG and WP:ORG appear to be failed. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, provisionally. Automated GNews searching is hindered by the fact that this article is about a minor tech trade news outlet, and itself a mighty republisher of press releases. The article puts it this way: provider of news and analysis for the global communications industry. Another global provider. It has downloadable issues on its website, which the article struggles to make seem like a mighty achievement: Since 2010 monthly analysis has been provided via Total Telecom+ which is available as a Digital Page Turner, PDF and iPad app. Since search engines are borked looking for this, I'd be happy to change my mind if pointed to deep coverage in independent, reliable sources; and if the article were rewritten into something less airish and more fitting an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of third-party sources, none were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel HDR

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

Delete. Article history shows that article was created by the subject, presumably to promote links to their own websites. This is a BLP with no sources whatsover and notability has not been established. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Did you use the template find before creating this Afd ? It seems that some sources exist. Are they too weak ? Did you read them ? --Crazy runner (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Did you read the portugues page ? Can the sources on the portugues page be used to prove notability ? Are they too weak ? --Crazy runner (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, as far as I can tell, the sources only confirm that he is an illustrator for Marvel. There does not seem to be any other biographical information. We don't write biographies for individuals who have not become notable enough to have a significant amount of biographical data. In any case, the article was written by the subject himself. It would be better to start fresh if and when there is enough biographical data to write a proper biographical article that says something other than "Subject is an illustrator for Marvel". Employees are rarely notable. Finally, this is a WP:BLP, and current policy is that unsourced BLPs should be deleted. I don't read Portuguese and most translators are crap anyway. In any case, it appears that the Portuguese article was also written by the subject, and at least some of the references are to press releases, which are not reliable sources. It's not my responsibility to do all that work for something that's clearly a vanity page. Do it yourself if you care. If not, it'll all get sorted out during the process of this AfD. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, as none were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Algorithmic Logic 15

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

Non-notable. Article was previously in a quite spammy state. I removed spammy material and found legit refs for what was left, but that left nothing notable. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. I also have not found anything particularly notable here. This probably could have been done with WP:PROD. --Kvng (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This a model in Star Bridge Systems' line of FPGA-accelerated workstations/supercomputers. The company or this product line might be notable (e.g. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_7_19/ai_55867698/), but this particular model probably isn't. —Ruud 10:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find everything about this notable; hyper-computing was a major breakthrough and the HAL 15, although not as well known as HAL 9000, was the first to be actually used by notable organizations like NASA but also Hollywood studios etc. I added a CNN reference to the article so now there's multiple. --DeVerm (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that "hyper-computing" is an ill-defined neologism (it is clearly not used in the sense of hypercomputation as the article implied before it was trimmed) and that HAL 9000 is fictitious, so I don't how they can be compared apart from the name? —Ruud 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct on both counts Ruud. But this article is not about hyper-computation which is about models for mathematical algorithms. My reference to HAL 9000 was only partly in jest because these real HAL computers share that same abbreviation not by accident and do indeed touch upon the field and possibilities of the famous sf computer. It is notable because of it's high power which was also the reason such high profile organizations were buying it. --DeVerm (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ruud; fails WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in secondary independent sources (or even in the primary non-independent ones for that matter [53]--only 2 pages). An article about Star Bridge Systems (or is that Starbridge?) probably focusing on the series would have more of a chance of being notable on a quick Google Books & News search. See [54] [55] for a starting point.FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An overview article on FPGA supercomputing would actually be more valuable and easier to source comprehensively than any focused on one of these elusive small scale manufacturers. There's a sorry stub on Reconfigurable Supercomputing, the super topic of that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Asphalt

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

No sourcing and no claim of notability. It was tagged CSD A9, for some reason not deleted, then contested PROD. No idea why it stands, as this is not a notable song. Cerejota (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant claim to notability as recorded by several well-known folk musicians, also untrue to say "no sourcing", although I accept sourcing could be improved. PatGallacher (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found only false positives in Google Books when searching "Hot Ashpalt" + various keywords. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Songs are not notable just because they are sung by notable musicians, and the song is not notable either as an individual recording or as a commonly recorded song.--Djohns21 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this song is notable. Ridernyc (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy 'Five Bellies' Gardner

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

Simply does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedia entry. Only thing he's ever done is be mates with Paul Gascoigne, and we all know that notability isn't inherited. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more useful set of searches than those linked above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gazza. Its as nom says. Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having no claim to WP notability. The position is summed up in this 'why are they famous' article in The Independent, a reliable source. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be amusing if someone tried to use the article as establishing notability! But he is just a hanger on as the article notes. Szzuk (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Both redirect or delete are ok with me. Szzuk (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Lugnuts (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect or Delete. Notability is not Inherited, but redirects don't hurt anyone. --Djohns21 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable limpet. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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