< 29 June	1 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Hussein Khenaina[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. No Secondary source to claim notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. (Note I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [1] [2] [3] was Delete--DBigXray 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator's rationale ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 08:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. They all were held for something or sent to prison and this establishes zero notability. There is nothing notable about the persons in those articles nor they have done anything notable to have an article in wiki. I can't find any sources for the article nor any notable info about the persons. →TSU ^tp* 13:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination - all of these articles violate WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Primary sources, routine case details, none satisfy WP:GNG. Even if by some marvel sources discussing the detention are found, still a standard WP:BLP1E fail. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brocas Helm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable WP:Band - in addition I would say there are copyright issues with the uncited content that appears in other locations on the www - difficult to tell where it was first published but the content claims were first published here in 2006 without any citations at all diff ...so....Youreallycan 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and is staggeringly far from WP:MUSICBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 22:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article has been around a long time without any sources or credible assertations of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search shows a few mentions of the band, but nothing significant. I actually slashed (stubbed) the article as unsourced, but I did nothing else in terms of deleting it. Then, Ten Pound Hammer came along, perhaps because there was nothing left in the article (don't know if he looked at the history) and requested speedy deletion. That was apparently declined (rightfully) by an admin who then restored all the material I had deleted, posting a very pleasant comment on my Talk page as he (the admin) thought I hadn't intended to do what I did. Sort of a comedy of misunderstandings because I intended to do precisely what I did. And now here we are. I've left all the unsourced material in the article, not wanting to rock the boat any more than I (sort of) already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band and it fails WP: GNG, too, as there are no sources, just an external link. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GNG CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 04:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to then redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guppy Aircraft[edit]

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

Malformed dab page. The top half violates WP:PTM and is duplicated in Guppy (disambiguation), and the rest is WP:ORish. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Guppy aircraft links do merit a subsection of Guppy (disambiguation) but not a separate page. The other info about lookalikes might be suitable for some kind of Guppy aircraft series article but it's not significant enough for a dab page. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - page I created when I was a noob, with hindsight it clearly isn't needed. --W. D. Graham 01:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aero Spacelines, the company that manufactured the various types of Guppy aircraft. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aero Spacelines per Nyttend. Primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such thing as a "Guppy Aircraft" - note the capital "A" which makes this an unlikely search term. As for the page itself, this is precisely the sort of thing a navbox is for - and there is one. ((Aero Spacelines aircraft)). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aero Spacelines, at least until/unless an article on the Guppy series is created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Correctness. Or elsewhere, that can be decided editorially, but consensus is that this does not need a disambiguation page. Sandstein 07:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic topic, better suited to a wiktionary page. None of the current links in the page ( a disambiguation page ) appear to require disambiguation from this page. Suggest soft redirect to wiktionary page as was done as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able-bodied. Oranjblud (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It's a disambiguation page, and it technically fails that criteria, but it's much better as a disambiguation than it would be as some sort of exposition about the word better suited for wiktionary. If someone adds more reasonable entries to make it a valid disambiguation page, I'd be willing to keep. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PTM, none of these entries is suitable for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Correctness dab page (to which "Correct" redirects), noting that "Politically incorrect", the only plausible-looking entry in the dab page, already redirects to Political correctness. Add "incorrect" wiktionary link, and perhaps "correctness" and "incorrectness", in place of the irrelevant set of wiktionary links currently on that page! PamD 20:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that a redirect is the right answer. Though as a wiktionary link causes the user to stop on the page it is simple enough to add a hatnote like "see also" to "correctness" if wanted - though I think it unlikely that people are going to type "incorrect" expecting that (?).Oranjblud (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Although I'm fairly sure a dab page could be made on "politically incorrect" (songs, terms, Simpsons episodes etc)--Coin945 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the one (Politically incorrect (disambiguation)) that we've had since 2005? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Correctness as this seems to be the best way of serving our readership. For an example of a source covering the topic, see Demonstrating Incorrectness. Warden (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "incorrectness" should redirect there but redirecting incorrect to correctness is a wp:easter egg link in my opinion.Oranjblud (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No more so than that politically incorrect redirects to political correctness. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll qualify that - "incorrectness" should probably (if it exists as an article) should also soft redirect to wiktionary - which of course should refer to the use in computer science.Oranjblud (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said that already. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Warden (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the others. Note that redirecting one concept to an article about the precise opposite is common; see Nonflammable and Flammability for an example. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To wiktionary It's not at all clear to me what somebody searching for "incorrect" on WP would expect to see, but I don't think it's anything on Correctness. Nonflammable and flammability are different, because both are narrow, clearly-defined concepts, and whichever you search for you're looking for info on why some things burn and some things don't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We could always redirect it to error instead. Wiktionary has had incorrect for years longer than Wikipedia has had this. Please don't blindly treat Wiktionary as Wikipedia's dumping ground. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not using wiktionary as a dumping ground - making a soft redirect to wiktionary is a way of saying "this is a topic for a dictionary" (and not an encyclopedia). There's no assumption of copying content to wiktionary.Oranjblud (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Error. Failing that, soft redirect to the existing Wiktionary entry. Failing that, redirect to Correctness. Or delete. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Garden (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Found no significant coverage in a Google News search using the band name, the word "band", and the name of the founder (Michael Young). Hanging Garden is too common a term to search on. The article is unsourced, as are unrelated articles, e.g., Chaos Theory (Hanging Garden album). Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this band had indeed released an album on Capitol Records, toured the USA and Canada with Kreator, you would have thought that there would be at least something out there confirming it. Yet I can find nothing, not a review of an album or tour, there's nothing on Allmusic ... meanwhile, there does appear to be a metal band called the same thing from Finland [4] who with at least one album on Interscope records [5], and their albums sold on Amazon, may be notable themselves ... but I actually wonder if this band might even be a hoax. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I undeleted the images that were formerly used on this article. Both images of the band didn't show their faces, and the live image was claimed to be of the band playing at Brixton Academy but was clearly in a much smaller venue and conveniently blurred so that faces couldn't be made out. Meanwhile, Kreator didn't tour the US or Canada in 2008 as their tour was cancelled (and they were supporting King Diamond anyway) [6], they just did a few European dates [7]. The only thing that's stopping me calling "hoax" right now and G3'ing this is that the author has a lot of good contributions as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And further, I tried searching for some of the track titles on this supposedly major label release; result - nothing at all except mirrors of this article. I call bullshit. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Black Kite, I'm not finding any reliable sources containing information that would satisfy even one criterion of WP:BAND. If this isn't a hoax, it's very good imitation. Chaos Theory (Hanging Garden album) should be deleted as well; I don't know whether an A9 speedy would be appropriate if this closes as delete or another AfD is needed. Deor (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Into Battle (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. A Google News search turns up almost nothing, let along significant coverage to justify an article just about the album. Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band is also at AFD for lack of notability. If the band's not notable, neither is the album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the above - Youreallycan 22:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above above the above =P CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 04:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdullah Taha Mattan[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. No Secondary source to claim notability. The citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports). Tagged for Notability since August 2011 DBigXray 19:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classical BLP1E he is not known for something else--Shrike (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, classic WP:BLP1E, there are more of these War-on-Terror-prisoner articles that should be deleted as well (I PRODed one myself earlier today).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even a BLP1E, this is a BLPZeroE...there's just nothing here other than an imprisonment. I thought we'd long cleaned up Geo Swan's bad Gitmo stubs, but it appears there's a lot more to do. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are in a desperate need of fining a solution to such articles. I would suggest the nominator to bundle them all. Separate AfDs are, in my opinion, a waste of time. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the suggestion, After a recent comment by User:DUCKISJAMMMY I have started bundling the similar AfD's together now. --DBigXray 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced Out (film)[edit]

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

This film fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: there's no indication of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the makers; there's no indication of alternative notability criteria. The article seems to have been created by James Vallo's friend Z.D. Smith (Zedudems (talk · contribs)) for the sole purpose of promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Try as hard as I might, I've only found the one DVD Talk review for this film. Everything else tends to come up as merchant sites, primary sources, or the typical "junk" hits that are completely unusable. This film just doesn't have notability enough for an entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete Article was last edited by author nearly 14 months ago... on May 12, 2011‎. That old COI issue aside, what we do when an author with COI stops editing a film article with which he has a too-close interest, is to look and see if enough secondary sources exist to qualify that film topic as notable... even if just. Since this was first screened in 2006, so I'll need to do some digging certainly... back later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can do it, you can. All I could find was the DVD Talk source, but if you can find anything more then I'll absolutely change my vote.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Thahit Abdullah Al Khalaqi[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. No Secondary source to claim notability. The citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports). DBigXray 19:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Rodhe[edit]

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for track & field athletes; probably WP:TOOSOON – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:

1) He is a world class shot putter and will be a top contender at the 2012 Summer Olympics (meet the criteria no.1,2,5,7 and 8):

2) Hit 2 times the Olympic “A” Standard this year. Ranked 10th world best performance this season at the IAAF with a 21.11 shot (Olympic “A standard”):

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2012/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=SP/detail.html

3) Qualified for the Olympics after finishing 2nd in the National Trials in Calgary behind Canadian world vice-champion Dylan Armstrong with a 20.30 shot (Olympic “B” Standard). Like Armstrong, Rodhe had achieved the Olympic qualifying standard and needed only a top-three finish at the trials to clinch a spot on the London-bound squad.:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/trackandfield/story/2012/06/30/sp-track-and-field-dylan-armstrong-justin-rodhe-london-olympics-tim-nedow.html

4) Never been in the World Championship for Canada before because he changes his nationality (USA to Canada) only this year on time for the Olympics.

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He satisfies WP:NTRACK #8 (I think; does it matter that the year isn't over yet?), qualified for the Summer Olympics, and the kerfuffle about his eligibility received significant press coverage in Canada. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to satisfy general notability guidelines thanks to the press coverage of his change of nation and will certainly satisfy guidelines for athletes if an Olympic appearance is on the cards - Basement12 (T.C) 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Press coverage does indeed satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Mohamed Saleh Naser[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. No Secondary source to claim notability. The citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

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

As it reads at the moment this page is basically a badly written dictionary entry and lists the different meanings of the word nationality. For encyclopedia purposes the term nationality is essentially synonymous with the word citizenship and I propose to delete the current article and replace it with a redirect to citizenship. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of nationality is certainly notable, and goes well beyond a simple dictionary definition. And as for being the same as citizenship, that patently is not and has not been so in every case. There is a related article at Nationalism, but nationality as a precise identity requires an article of its own, if only to distinguish it from citizenship.. --AJHingston (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect the only commonality between Nationalism and Nationality is the the first nine letters. How are Nationality and Citizenship patently different? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve, don't delete. The concept is undoubtedly important. --JaGa^talk 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not arguing that nationality is not an important issue. I'm just saying that citizenship and nationality are the same thing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Many people in various parts of the world define themselves by their 'nationality' not their country's passports--or citizenship. Spain's Basques and Catalans may consider their nationality more important than being a citizen of Spain. Does anyone think the Tibetans and Muslim Uighurs of Western China consider themselves Chinese for a second just because their passports say so? Nationality counts a lot in countries with significant ethnic minorities like Nigeria, Burma, India...where people consider their nationality as more important than the country they live in oftentimes. Even modern Belgium has had almost no government for many months due to conflicts between the Dutch speaking Flemings in the North and the French speaking Walloons in the South. I doubt the Flemings care very much about being a citizen of Belgium...and more about being a Fleming unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Maybe I should be clearer what I mean here. At the moment Nationality is basically a disambiguation page. Nationality can mean either membership of a state or of a nation. I would argue that the first meaning is the primary topic and propose to redirect nationality to citizenship. The lead or a hatnote at citizenship can point people toward nation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator is proposing to make the page into a redirect. That is a matter of ordinary editing not requiring deletion. The various aspects of the topic and how they may best be covered on the relevant pages should be settled by ordinary talk-page discussion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page isn't so bad that it needs to be dynamited, and pages that don't need dynamite should be rewritten. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all except Lily Pond Avenue, which is no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Avenue[edit]

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

Reid Avenue is another short residential street in Staten Island that has no meaning to anyone except those living there. The "landmarks" in the article are not actually NYC landmarks, but local businesses and points of interest. Having one city bus route on the street does not make it any more notable since almost every street in Staten Island has at least one local and/or express bus route serving it due to lack of rail service. Searching "Reid Avenue" on Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. only comes up real estate sites, travel guides, and police reports, nothing that proves its significane to the city. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all tiny, insignificant, residential streets with irrelevant sources (i.e. they are about homes and places on the streets, not the streets themselves), all created by the same editor, who based on his user name, is obviously a huge Staten Island fan and does not seem to understand that while these streets may be important for his personal use, they are not as important to the rest of the world:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Avenue. That is the same situation repeated here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – While as a resident that lives near Staten Island, the only one I could see surviving (very very unlikely) is Lily Pond. I am not going to argue it however. Noticeably of the template, I'd only keep the following: Arthur Kill, Father Capodanno, Clove, Forest (already part of ex-NY 439), Hylan, Richmond Avenue, Slosson, Todt Hill and Victory (ex-NY 439A). The rest can go in my book. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Lily Pond Avenue per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Street_(Manhattan) - a two-way bus route is a busy area is notable. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. City streets are generally below our threshold of importance unless there's something really remarkable/unique about the street that would merit inclusion. I wouldn't consider a bus route unusual enough to establish that the street is worthy of an article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Nothing special about these streets. Dough 48 72 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I agree with everyone else that almost all of these streets are not notable, but the Lily Pond article is (1) sourced well, and (2) shows notability, for example, as a "primary artery", "is the middle leg of Staten Island's coastal eastern corridor," it intersects several major arteries, and has at least one landmark. Finally no less than seven buses have routes on at least part of Lily Pond. I think that's enough, and it has been the consensus in the past. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I understand that some of these articles are not notable, but it took me just a few clicks to find out many more reliable sources about Lily Pond Ave. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Avenue is also somewhat notable for the same reasons as I have argued above, and I would also endorse keeping that one, too. Midland Ave. has a elementary school, a major church, and several bus routes on it. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berian, those sources you added to the Lily Pond Avenue article are reliable, but still not enough to merit an article for the street. One little accident, even if it was fatal, does not make it notable and those books you added do not have any critical moments happening on the avenue, just characters driving or playing on it. Also, the express buses that run on this avenue only have one stop along it and a look on Google Maps show that Lily Pond Avenue appears to be part of Father Capodanno Boulevard with its sole purpose being to connect it with the Staten Island Expressway, Verazzano-Narrows Bridge, and the areas directly to north, so if anything, it can be merged or redirected to that article instead. As for Midland Avenue, bare notability is not enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It may be important to those living near or around it, but not the rest of the world. Having an elementary school or local church does not make the street notable, especially if they are not well known, and there are dozens of other streets around the city that have several bus routes running on them and we do not have articles on them. Buses are meant to transport people to and from residential areas that have no rail service, so if people living in a particular street usually go to many different areas, there would be many different bus routes running there. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schools, churches, and bus routes do not necessarily make a road notable. Dough 48 72 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Schools, churches, and bus routes may or may not be notable themselves, but they don't transfer that notability onto the street. Any street, major or minor, can have one or more of those. (One street in the town I went to school at carried six bus routes...not because it was a particularly interesting street, but because it was just the most logical route from the school to Highway 24). Accidents don't really confer notability in and of themselves—all roads are bound to have an accident some day, even M-185—I would only consider it germane if it was an well-known accident that got a lot of press coverage (i.e. more than just a short "there was an accident on 42nd Street today" blurb) or if it was something directly attributable to some unique feature of the road (e.g. its geometry). What we should be looking at is not necessarily what is on the street but what role it plays in the city. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Far too many of these street names are too generic and disambiguous. When I see names like Old Town Road, my first thought it a long local street running between Coram and Setauket, New York that originally spanned as far south as Brookhaven (CDP), New York, and contains part of the Tallmadge Trail. Having said that, I still think the info from these articles could be spread out to others. ----DanTD (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as advertising. This isn't an encyclopaedia article. It doesn't even pretend to be one. It speaks in the first person and exhorts the reader in the second. This is gone on sight. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption marketing[edit]

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

Unreferenced original essay, as far as I can tell. The concept does get some Google Books hits, but they don't seem to be significant coverage of the topic itself. Regardless, what we have here is practically unsalvageable, as the argument at hand seems to be that all marketing is disruptive (note how it includes TV ads, telemarketing, magazine advertising, outdoor advertising such as billboards, online advertising, etc.), eventually flat-out saying "stop advertising". In the end, this is just a tirade against all forms of advertising and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced WP:Original research --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS This article doesn't make sense to a neutral reader. The author's definition of disruption marketing might not be the same to you or me. --Artene50 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could easily have been deleted per WP:G1 or WP:G3. I would not do so, but I have seen articles Speedy deleted for less. No citations, none available, none conceivable. I used to believe all marketing was disruptive until I read this article (mostly joking). Anarchangel (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research essay. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shock advertising. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A's Messages in Season 1[edit]

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

A list of verbatim messages that have appeared in Pretty Little Liars; this is a simple case of excessive detail, and thus undue weight (I think it's also a possible violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic list of quotes. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I (not familiar with the show) can't see how it is relevant to the plot. However, if I'm wrong with this assumption, then Maybe weak merge to Pretty Little Liars (season 1), where it can be shown in list form near the plot without an extra stand-alone list. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at first I thought maybe transwiki to Wikiquote, but this doesn't appear to be a real collection of notable/interesting quotes but somehow related to the plot which AFAIK would not be welcome at Wikiquote either. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IDF model[edit]

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

The creator removed a PROD in December 2010 but no one noticed and the article has stayed in this state ever since. Unreferenced, a personal reflection or essay. WP:OR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been there for over a year and a half and other persons has edit it also, your AfD looks more like a personal matter at the moment and therefor is not considered to be on behalf of Wikipedia. I removed your AfD therefor.--S.A. de Ruiter 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruiter (talk • contribs)

There is nothing personal in this, but it stands to reason that if one article is up for deletion, the author's other creations will also be examined. Other users edited the article because the fact that you removed the PROD without addressing the issue simply went unnoticed. Removing AfD templates is against policy.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic example of a deletion candidate which is hard to explain, but isn't really about a "thing". Article uses no source and a search throws up nothing to support the article. Agree with nom, delete as OR essay. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it's far more often stated as an aphorism about computer programming projects. Merge to Project_management_triangle#Example. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AnonMoos has pointed to a more nuanced and contextualised discussion at the Project_management_triangle article. I'm not seeing anything in the unreferenced IDF model article which could be used to improve that article. That leaves the question of whether a redirect would be appropriate? But I'm not finding any specific use of the "IDF model" as a term that would make that appropriate (and it could cause confusion for other IDF models such as Ideal free distribution). AllyD (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The material here is unsourced, and IDF Model as a redirect makes no sense as I cannot find any sources referring to this by that name. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intergral Manager[edit]

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

Weird, dreamy personal reflection on managers. Don't really think it fits any CSD criteria, but is basically just a WP:OR essay. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal oppinion of you, this an explanation of the different kind of management style are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruiter (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal reflection, or something made up. Creator removed AfD notice. WP:OR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By removing this article says that there are no different style of management, this article is defining one of the different styles there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruiter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second article of this kind you have created. Please read WP:N on the notability for articles for inclusion and tell us how it meets Wikipedia criteria. And please sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay of unreferenced non-encyclopaedic opinion. AllyD (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again there it is not clear which critieria of Wikipedia you are refering to which is not alligning, your'e statement is to global atm. If there is no logical AfD reason I suggest you remove the AfD. --S.A. de Ruiter 17:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruiter (talk • contribs)
  - Try WP:OR. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, move to integral manager — apparently. There is no such word as intergral. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But no move during the AfD process, please, as that causes problems for the closure tools. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essay. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's original research. (However, our coverage of management is weak; if anybody wants to write a sourced article on a notable management concept, I'd like to help). bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete: WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, and the original author may want to have a read through WP:AFD as well.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Earps[edit]

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

Prod removed, no reason given, procedural nomination. Original prod was "No indication that Earps has played in a fully professional league, and has no other notability besides that", i.e. no real claim of notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully professional league which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical rows[edit]

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

It's very description as a work-in-progress pretty much sums up the issues here. There is no evident notability here per WP:NOTE/WP:GNG. There is no article on the artist himself and it appears to be an attempt to establish notability for his project through Wikipedia. There are no apparent independent sources for this. Google searches for the artist and the work turn up nothing independent of the artist. No judgment on the work itself; it's simply WP:TOOSOON freshacconci talktalk 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There's absolutely nothing to show that this art installation is ultimately notable and it doesn't help that the only sources out there are all primary and that there's a COI going on here. (Since the original editor's name and the artist's name are the same.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no WP:RS evidence to indicate that this project is notable. That said, it is always possible that some such evidence exists under another language. Happy to revise view if suitably robust references can be located. AllyD (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no WP:RS given to establish the subject's notability. The WP:COI issue is a problem...but the real problem is the absence of notability and independent--or any verifiable--sources. --Artene50 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuated Tube Transport[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines and violates conflict of interest guidelines. It basically describes a specific brand of vactrain that has not received any significant coverage. As a product, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. PseudoChron (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be have been put in wikipedia purely for the purposes of promoting the product/patent/business. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool.Embrittled (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Gemology[edit]

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

No reliable sources can be found. Article is being used as a WP:COATRACK to attack the subject. I just wiped clean a ton of sources to blogs, forums, websites of people primarily connected to subject, and attack sites. Does not pass WP:GNG, or WP:ORG. v/r - T P 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Removal of large amounts of text by nominator before nomination makes it more difficult to assess the article's potential for content and sources, thereby compromising the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complicates the discussion's closure. Note also a Scholar result Authenticity and provenance studies of copper-bearing andesines using Cu isotope ratios and element analysis by fs-LA-MC-ICPMS and ns-LA-ICPMS Chemistry and Materials Science: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Volume 398, Numbers 7-8 (2010), 2915-2928, DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4245-z from tibetandesine.com, GH Fontaine, K Hametner, A Peretti "In 2008, red feldspar was even considered as a candidate for the official gemstone of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing [4]. However, from as early on as 2006 and initiated by customerconcerns, the International School of Gemology raised doubts about the authenticity of ..."

Anarchangel (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Removal of large amounts of text by nominator before nomination makes it more difficult to assess the article's potential" No it doesn't. It's called 'article history' and you can see the pre-trim WP:COATRACK here. There is also WP:AGF to consider. I only removed content that was poorly sourced. You're welcome to verify that claim. Keep in mind that WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the subject. Not a bare mention in a larger article about another subject.--v/r - T P 23:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like for you to do is just, keep on doing what you just did. When you have gotten to the end of trimming stuff you don't care for, and have, I dunno, decided that the article isn't worth it and should be deleted instead, just put a diff between when you started deleting and ended, and it's all good. I can't imagine it taking more time than say, looking for sources. Anarchangel (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an untrue word in my version of the article, TParis. I made sure everything is easily verifiable and the sources are reliable. Where I use fora it concerns posts written by known individuals who sign their words. The ISG, which is in fact just one person: Robert James, operates mainly through fora so this is just about the only place where one can refer to. --v/r - Rock-o-solid (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forums may be reliable, it is true. However, although WP:USERGENERATED gives a bizarre example, something that conceivably happens a hundred times a year, to define a huge category of hundreds of thousands of sources, and is in all extremely badly written, most Wikipedians rely on it, so you have your work cut out convincing them otherwise. Anarchangel (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single reliable source. Mcewan (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big fan of Google Scholar, then, or did you just not read the other AfD contributors' comments? Anarchangel (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider a single passing reference in the abstract of someone else's paper to be a reliable source to establish notability. All it says is that this organisation "...raised doubts about the authenticity of...". That's hardly significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mcewan (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: In looking at this and in particular [8] it's likely that the organisation is a one man band and if the article does end up being kept should probably come under BLP (which might help avoid a repeat of the attack material). Mcewan (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above material is interesting but I went looking for reliable sources that talk about the notability of the school -- not its principal, not any controversies in which its principal or others might be embroiled -- and found nothing that contributed to notability. My personal view is that the material I found would not be sufficiently reliable to assert notability on behalf of Robert James, but that is not what we're being asked to assess here. I was unable to establish reliably that the school, in and of itself, was notable, according to the definition of "reliable sources" given by Wikipedia. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed. I must admit: the whole page can be deleted on grounds of being non-notable. My version could be of significance for those looking for a proper gemological education but that's not a WP:N ground. In the grand scheme of things this 'school' and its 'principle/janitor' are indeed insignificant. Rock-o-solid (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Sam (cocktail)[edit]

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

Non-notable drink invented by an Italian bartender named Sam and served solely by that bartender in a small cafe in Bologna. The references provided are a travel blog and an advert for the cafe. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously mentioned, I visited this cafe as I saw it on a travel show in Japan. It was broadcasted on NHK. As a result, when visiting Bologna I visited this bar (as have many others I assume).

My references may not be excellent (as are many), but I listed the ones that gave the most information on the drink. If you can read Italian or German I can provide some more. I could even email you the show as I have it somewhere, if you can understand Japanese that is.

I believe that such a drink that was advertised on a national network (also in over 100 other countries from an article that I just read) is of notoriety.

The fact that it is only served in one location is irrelevant. From my research it seems to be highly respected by travelers, hence the reviews. Just because an editor on Wikipedia (who seems to be of low social exposure) decides an article is not relevant to him, does not speak for the entire internet community. Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add to this discussion, regardless of the outcome. I do however believe that an internal audit needs to be conducted, regarding the suitability of editors. Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie, please remember the principle of WP:CIVIL and assume good faith on behalf of the nominating editor, so please don't attack him. The sources on the article so far aren't enough to show notability and you need to show more. Saying that sources exist somewhere out in the world isn't enough. You have to source them in the article and even then you have to make sure that they're considered WP:RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. The first source you have listed is a blog entry. [9] Blog entries generally aren't usable as sources unless they're by someone who is considered to be such an authoritative source that they're pretty much the type of person that magazines, books, and news sources quote. Most blogs aren't considered usable per this reason, regardless of how well the blog is laid out, how long it's been running, or how knowledgeable the blogger is. The second source is a city guide that's pretty much nothing but an ad for the store. That's far from being a reliable and independent source and would be seen as a primary source since I'd imagine that since it's pretty much an ad, the store itself paid for placement. Even if it wasn't paid for by the store, it's not something that would show notability for the drink. I'll see what I can find, but remember- you've got to show sources that are considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's strict guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl, I understand where you are coming from. I was more so surprised by the unprofessionalism that was shown by the editor. If the article is not deemed suitable for Wikipedia I respect that decision. An articulate person such as yourself receives nothing but respect.

I do applaud your initiative in looking for such sources (in English) on your own accord, without prematurely dismissing the article. I thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are poor. If this drink indeed is only served in one location I don't think it can have any claim to being of international importance. Even if it featured in TV programme, I think it's important to exercise a bit of common sense here. The content could be included in a parent article about the bar or barman in question, but it doesn't warrant an article of its own. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basa, based upon your opinion, the Great Wall of China is only in China, therefore it must not be notable.

I do apologize to all for the lack of referencing.Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I searched diligently, I couldn't find sources other than the blogs, not even a newspaper article on either the drink, the bartender or the bar. Even Highbeam searches didn't result in finding any reliable sources. Alas for Bobbybobbie's fine effort, not everything is necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion calls outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012 Kaduna church bombings[edit]

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

News report of a bombing. WP:NOTNEWS. noq (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been referenced with a secondary source (the BBC). Perhaps an additional ref tag may be justified but that does not mean delete. Muslim bombings in Nigeria has been well covered in the news. If the issue is editing style, those can be fixed with normal editing practices but that does not justify the deletion of the article.Tamsier (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is purely a new report and as such does not belong in an encyclopaedia. noq (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please indent your replies with colons for other editors to see which part of the conversation you are replying to. It makes things much easier. :) The policy you have cited to justify your rationale for deleting this article does not support your claim (WP:NOTNEWS). Current events can be included in articles. Furthermore, this article does "not offer" a "first-hand news reports on breaking stories", but cite a reliable secondary source (the BBC). As such, this article does "not constitute a primary source", and as far as I can see, your grounds for nominating this article has no merit whatsoever.Tamsier (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 14:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has multiple reliable sources.--Cattus ^talk 23:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is verifiable news and its referenced by the BBC and other reliable news sources. This article is related to Boko Haram's terrorism plots against Christians in Nigeria. This meets wikipedia's standards for sources. --Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV--DBigXray 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, the article is notable. I have also added additional reliable sources to the article. Tamsier (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Burgundy[edit]

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

A non-notable rehashing of the information in the main article. It could be noteworthy if the article were a cited discussion of the view of third parties, or a history of the characters' development, but this is not the case THobern 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Smerge to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot where this character life is already discussed in detail. Interestingly, Will Ferrell has taken his character into the real world, as for-instance evidenced by Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) appearing as a guest anchor in the MTV Newsroom.[10] The character has also appeared at sports events, such as a Caps game.[11] And lest we forget, Burgundy came back in the direct-to-video Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie... however, I do not think we have enough for a separate (specially if unsourced) article on the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot. Without any information on character development, non-Anchorman appearances, and any other real-world information, this article violates WP:NOTPLOT. I assume it could be saved by adding real-world information, if anyone has the time to do so, can find the information, and is willing. Unfortunately, I do not have said time in the foreseeable future. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the movie. Completely redundant. Everything about him is in the plot, and most of everything in the plot is about him. Same thing with the actual reception of the movie versus the reception of the character: they're one and the same, and not just because the movie is called "Anchorman". Shooterwalker (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption (Ryan Drake 1)[edit]

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

New book by new author. No indication of meeting notability criteria at WP:NBOOK. Unreferenced and nothign significant found on google. noq (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Article is also completely unencyclopedic (plot only). And I'm not convinced that this re-created article has addressed the copyvio problems adequately. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WorldCat search shows only 7 copies of this book in libraries worldwide, which immediately fails the absolute minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article on a book. This may change as time goes on, but for now it's an immediate must-delete, per WP:NBOOK's threshold standards. Should the book ever get copies in a substantive number of libraries then we can start checking other book notability guidelines, and if the book then passes, an article can be recreated. In the meantime we are not a WP:CRYSTAL ball about future notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's the Sheriff (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Created by band principal. Appears to be entirely self-funded and self-promoted. Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cajun Sushi Hamsters[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization; barring forums and blogs (of the "I'm a participant" type) there are hardly any refs, try this search. Has been around unreffed and orphaned since 2007. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I absolutely love the name, there aren't any sources out there to show that this group has enough notability to warrant having an article. There's a ton of unusable sources, but nothing that would be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one-sentence article barely makes it into "stub" category. I could dig up a half dozen references or so-- the workshop has been written about in various newspaper and magazine articles-- but I'm not sure how many people are going to look up the workshop in Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a handful of citations I could find lying around. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to accept your sources in good faith, the article remains skeletal even for a stub. Would you be able either to provide the text of some of the cited articles, or to work the material into the article in the usual way, e.g. with a "Reception" section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as new sources appear to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. It's too bad that Northern Ohio Live is defunct but this news article strongly indicates that it was a reliable source for our purposes. (Article needs expansion, but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD.) - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article that says very much. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a sentence, not an article. Given that the references offered start in 1993 and go only through 2009, I'm not even sure the verb "is" in the article is still relevant. Perhaps it should be "was". If this workshop still exists, citations should be more readily available if it's notable. If it no longer operates, then it doesn't appear notable based on what's been provided thus far. If "The Cajun Sushi Hampsters keep winning awards and launching careers." (as was noted in the 2006 link), then there should be references to those awards or careers launched. The Cleveland Plain Dealer article only says that some members of the workshop are going to do a reading at a bookstore (not notable), so all in all, I recommend a deletion. Vertium (talk to me) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient participation to assess consensus. Sandstein 07:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syr Law[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. Of the references included most are just listings, one is appears to be a PR notification (it is listed copied in many locations) and the other is mostly interview (primary reference). I do not see non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree Greatly as the topic is VERY relevant to the culture of nollywood genre. This event has been covered in dozens of notable African media and even American press. Please view this link for further discussions on a previous topic Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paparazzi_Eye_In_The_Dark The decision to delete was overturned because "It is a valuable piece of information about African cinema"
The use of Hollywood actors in Nollywood films has not happened until Paparazzi eye in the dark. She then went on to be the first to win awards in a very prestigious African Award Ceremony "NAFCA" in the USA where several Nollywood Actors flew into the US to attend. I have posted 40 links and 20 have covered this event. A editor removed 33 links because he didnt see Syr Laws name however some articles listed her by her original name. A different standard and sensitivity must be placed on the importance of a growing culture.
These most important links where deleted by an outside editor:
- (US SITE) MAKHO NDLOVU: http://makho-ndlovu.blogspot.com/2011/10/exclusive-interview-with-one-of.html
- (US SITE) SIMPLY RIDES: http://simplyrides.com/celebrity-ride-syr-law-volkswagen/
- (US SITE): BOLD MAGAZINE:http://issuu.com/emirsky/docs/bold_officialtest222
Please View above, Thank you. Dustyairs (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THESE LINKS WERE ALSO DELETED!! http://www.thevoicenewsmagazine.com/newsdetails.asp?id=330&cat_id=12 and the Chicago tribune link http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-24/entertainment/ct-mov-0225-chicago-closeup-20110224_1_native-heads-83rd-academy-awards-rabbit-hole/2 If you google Syl Law Nollywood Awards.. Several links appear that are NOT blogs or trivial.Dustyairs (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:SOURCES as what constitutes as a reliable reference. Blogspot is a blog, thus it is unreliable. The Simply Rides ref is a blog. chicagotribune ref never mention Syr. The Voice Newsmagazine ref is already in the article... Nigerian Voice and Voice magazine are done by the same people with the same staff. The Bold Magazine reference is a test. It was never published and no other editions were done. Please, no typing in caps. It is considered shouting and rude. Bgwhite (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intent was not to be shouting or rude, sorry and i apologize for the appearance.Frustrated may sum it up as i have had similar problems with topics dealing african cinema and its credibility issues. until someone comes along and understands the significance of the events taking place. I am frankly unsure what to do from this point as i have given cites from creditable african press. unfortunately the structure of there articles are not always standard and blog like articles are commonly used to relay info in those counties and determining credibility of foreign press is challenging at best to American audiences. The nigerian voice and voice magazine are 2 different dates and address two different subjects. both relevant to article as one also covers her induction into nollywood cinema.Dustyairs (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that everyone here is American. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (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) 02:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should be lenient per WP:BIAS; as Dustyairs says, there isn't the same media coverage of African cinema as there is of even the least significant American film, and a lot of it is done in blogs or other seemingly unreliable sources. With a biography of a living person there are additional concerns, requiring all information to be reliably sourced, which is a complication in this area, so it's hard to argue strongly for keeping this particular article. But that shouldn't prevent coverage of important non-first-world topics, and editors need to be innovative and think how to preserve and expand coverage in under-exposed areas. A merge/redirect to Paparazzi: Eye in the Dark might be a bit of a solution in this case, but it's not ideal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights as a western foreign policy objective in the Middle East[edit]

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

DELETE Its unsources and written like an essay and its not written NPV Christian75 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay for OR and POV. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal. 81M (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced, original research. It has been tagged as an essay since December 2007, but there has been no attempt at improvement. RolandR (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously written as an opinion piece/essay or term paper. Too much WP:OR. (There are a handful of inline references, but it's hard to tell what they are referring to, since they just have an author and page number.) First Light (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on delete it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After it has been brought to my attention that the two only users (apart from the nominator) who recommended deletion, Pother and Ornaith, are now-blocked sockpuppets of a banned user, I am discounting their opinion and am changing the outcome to "keep." Sandstein 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication of British transport[edit]

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

Despite repeated requests for secondary sources and evidence that the article passes WP:GNG on talk, and questions raised over the notability of the article over the course of months, I contend that the notability of this topic is not established.

Article contains quite a few references, but every single one is to a primary source. Google searches primarily find this article, WP mirrors, and non-independent articles written by pressure groups whose primary purpose is to campaign on the topic of metrication in general. Requests for sources have turned up a similar mix, plus a few news articles on potential metrication of road signs - but no independent secondary source for any other part of the topic. I contend that, in the absence of reliable, independent and secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject area, the article does not pass WP:GNG. I further contend that the primary argument for notability provided on talk (that an editor has rated the article on the WP assessment/importance scales) is not evidence of notability. Editors concerned have asked for and have been given time to address these concerns, but three months on no attempt has been made to address them.

Note that there is a significant habit of inferring general trends from individual instances of usage (that is to say, if a primary source document gives a single distance in kilometres, this is taken as demonstrating that all similar documents give all distances in kilometres). This is OR, and while not a reason for deletion in and of itself, it should be taken into account when reviewing sources. Kahastok talk 11:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep—

This article has been rated as having High Importance by:

And has been rated as being of mid-importance by

WP:Wikiproject Trains

This article arose when the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was being overhauled and there was too much material relating to transport. This material was moved into a new article Metrication of British Transport and was supplemented by information that was moved from Road signs in the United Kingdom. Kahastok has already suggested that this article be deleted, a number of other editors entered the discussion, but the only support that Kahastok received was from an anonymous editor, believed to be a sock puppet of the banned user User:DeFacto.

Given that this article has been rated in respect of three different Wikiprojects and the fact that this has already been discussed and the decision has been “Keep”, I request that this nomination for deletion be refused and that the refusal should take the form of a Speedy keep on ground that this is nothing more than disruption by Kahastok. Martinvl (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, your argument is that anyone who disagrees with you is being disruptive and that if an editor assesses an article for a Wikiproject that makes it immune from notability requirements? Kahastok talk 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I don't find the nomination statement persuasive in the least. This is a legitimate fork of its parent article per WP:SIZE. Also remember that "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Imzadi 1979 → 15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it can be. Following the discussions we've had, and having looked myself, I do not believe that the sources are out there that would allow this article to pass WP:GNG. I delayed because I wanted to give Martin the opportunity to demonstrate notability - to see if I've missed something crucial. It has became apparent that I haven't. If it is not possible to write a policy-compliant article on a subject, we shouldn't have an article on that subject. This is the position we are in here.

The way it was put at the time on talk (and not, I hasten to add, by me) was that the article was there "to reduce the amount of cruft that has built up in the Metrication in the United Kingdom and Road signs in the United Kingdom". We shouldn't be in the business of farming out the cruft from articles into separate non-notable cruft articles. If there's too much cruft in the article, the cruft should just go. Kahastok talk 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and it's one of a few ways we measure if an article should exist. WP:SIZE is another, and based that guideline, this subtopic was spun out as its own article. In a sense, we trump the GNG sometimes. Take for instance, highway articles. The Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is notable beyond argument under WP:GNG. In order to keep the article from being too long, the tables that list each highway component of that system have separate articles, so List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan and List of state trunklines in Michigan are all split out. From those, another 200 or so articles are systematically split out to cover each highway because a comprehensive level of coverage mandates that we split out the specific highways on WP:SIZE concerns. Each individual highway article may not have newspaper articles, may not be proven to meet WP:GNG because of the specific coverage, or lack thereof, for a specific highway in the state. Since, we can't merge just everything into one über-article, separate articles, regardless of the tenets of GNG, are maintained.

When it comes to the topic of metrication, there is an article that deals with the topic as it specifically applies to the UK. Because of the level of detail, a transport-specific subarticle was created. This isn't "cruft", as the transition to metric in the UK is either still in progress, or halted midstream. The level of detail is appropriate, would overwhelm the parent if merged back intact, and therefore, in this case, I apply WP:SIZE as trumping WP:GNG, even if this subarticle lacks the sources we'd normally prefer. There isn't a policy that explicitly comes out against using primary sources, just a guideline that our "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (emphasis added, see the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR) Notice that it says should not must, meaning that it doesn't prohibit, just recommend. Based on other considerations, as a service to our reader, I would not gut this article to merge it back, nor would I just delete it outright. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:PSTS, when it says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" (emphasis original)? This entire article is based on primary sources. It's reasonable to suggest that that doesn't mean that if we add a token secondary source for a single point we're all fine - but based on the sources we've seen so far that's the best we can ever hope for. Kahastok talk 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a matter of cleaning up and revising, not deletion. The inclusion or exclusion of articles is based on notability or size guidelines when the topic doesn't violate policy. This topic is not by itself a violation of WP:NPOV (it's not a POV fork), the topic itself is not based on original research (argue all you want about the sources used, they can be replaced, but transport in the UK has metricated so you can't claim OR on the topic) and the the topic can be verified. Arguing based on PSTS won't convince me of deletion, just the need for improvement. Imzadi 1979 → 19:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "argue all you want about the sources used, they can be replaced".

That's precisely the point. We can't replace them with secondary sources because there simply aren't any secondary sources to replace them with (unless you have some that we've all missed?) Replace them with other primary sources and we don't resolve the essential issue that we shouldn't have articles that are entirely based on primary sources. There is no way in which this article can be made policy-compliant. Kahastok talk 19:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is compliant, per WP:SIZE. As part of the main article, it would be compliant re: sourcing, but it can't be cut to a size that would allow it to fit in the main article without violating WP:UNDUE, so, per the guideline, it was spun out. If you're suggesting that following guideline and WP:CONSENSUS = deletion, you're setting a truly horrific precedent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really saying that it's compliant with policy, even in the context of a single article, to have long sections that are actually impossible to source through secondary or tertiary sources? Certainly, basic policies such as WP:NOR would seem to suggest exactly the opposite. WP:PSTS doesn't just say that primary-source-only articles shouldn't exist, but that in general, "[m]aterial based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Even in the context of a single article, this would need deleting because that's exactly what we'd have here. That it's a separate article doesn't change that.

The argument here seems to be that it's perfectly within policy to create long sections of OR in articles, and then farm them out to produce OR-only articles. Surely it's obvious that that WP:NOR disallows this.

WP:SIZE should not be a free pass to create articles that can never meet policy requirements. Let's be clear: unless someone comes across a secret stash of secondary sources that none of us have found, there is no way in which this article can be ever be written to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. The whole point of notability requirements is that we don't have permanent policy violations. I see no reason why this permanent policy violation should be any different. Kahastok talk 22:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier on in this thread User:Kahastok wrote: "This entire article is based on primary sources". At the start of this article he wrote "but every single one is to a primary source". This is a gross exageration of reality. Since when were the BBC (Reference no 9) or the Daily Telegraph a prmary sources? Would Kahastok please stick to facts. Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not actually citing the BBC though. We're citing a video of the BBC TV show Question Time, and in particular a section of that video in which the then-Transport Secretary, Alastair Darling, states that the Government were no longer planning on metricating road signs. This is obvious to anyone who gives the point a moment's look. If you really think that a statement made by a government minister about a change in policy in an area for which he is responsible is a secondary source, I have to express serious concern at your judgement in this matter.

The Telegraph source was added after the AFD was started, as is obvious from the article history. I've been clear all along that there are a few news articles out there discussing road signs. Just nothing for the rest of the article. We aren't even close to the level of sourcing that would be required for us to write a policy-compliant article on metrication of British transport. Kahastok talk 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the BBC article wasn't, and the fact that the Telegraph article was added shows that there is material out there, just that I have been working on other articles. Martinvl (talk)

I refer you to my previous answer. Kahastok talk 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as pointed out above, this is a legitimate fork of Metrication in the United Kingdom per WP:SIZE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The primary issues are clearly to do with sources, content and cruft. If those are issues, we should begin by removing the offending material. If, after discussion, there's not enough information left for an article, only then will it be woth considering deletion (or, more likely, a merge back into the parent article). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I agree that neither the subject nor most of the content of this article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The content about road signs has recieved general cover, but is already adequately covered in the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article. Most of the content of this article relies on the personal intepretation of a few selected primary sources by just one editor. Pother (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article Battle of Schellenberg IS 42 kbytes long and had 59 citations. The article Metrication of British Transport is 21 kbytes long and has 32 citations giving it about the same citation density. This calls into question the statement "a few selected primary sources". I also dispute the statement that this topic is adeqately covered in "Metrication in the United Kingdom". This article devotes 19 cm (as measured on my screen) to the topic of road transport alone while "Metrication in the United Kingdom" devotes 8 cm (measured using the same technique) to both road and rail transport. This calls into question User:Pother's use of the word "adequately". Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Schellenberg relies entirely on secondary sources - books that cover the subject matter. I note that each cite is used for a relatively long passage of the article - something that we can often do with secondary sources. We can't do it in this article because the vast majority can't be referenced using secondary sources - there simply aren't any. This article instead relies on personal interpretation of primary sources, as Pother notes.

In terms of length, there are two obvious points. First, we might also point out the much larger picture on the transport article, which will skew Martin's results. Second, while the road transport section may be longer, that doesn't mean that there are the sources to sustain such length. Very little of the text can actually be cited to secondary sources. And that of course ignores the rest of the article, where none of the text can be cited to secondary sources. Policy tells us that we shouldn't have long portions of text that are entirely based on primary sources, and with good reason - but that's the only basis on which this article can possibly continue. Kahastok talk 18:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. The topic has not demonstrably received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" as required in WP:GNG. Scecifically:

None of the sources address the subject of the metrication of British Transport directly. At best, they mention just one aspect of the topic, and usually metrication of traffic signs. The vast majority of the content is pure "original research" (WP:OR) based on a personal interpretation and synthesis of primary sources such as British government agency white papers, memoires of the director of the British government metrication board, British government legislation (acts of parliament, statutory instruments and regulations), the SI body's brochure, British government traffic signs manual, British government assessments of costs of converting road signs, British government highway agency publications, Welsh government papers, European Union laws, British government driver information, British government railway safety board documents, London government transport information, British government admiralty manual, an international convention and air transport authority documents and British parliament Hansard (record of British government parliament proceedings).
All but three (3) of the thirty two (32) references are primary sources, so the notability requirement for secondary sources has not been met.
With most of the sources being British government publications of one sort or another, they do not satisfy the requirement that they be "independent of the subject".

It is difficult to imagine a less convincing case of notability of the topic. Ornaith (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a case for that there is one secondary source here (the Telegraph source, which deals with a very narrow part of the topic, added after the AFD was started). But no more than that.

I'm assuming that you're counting the BBC source as not primary. It is a primary source. What the article is actually citing there is a comment by the then-Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, mid-way through a TV debate show. The comment is not edited or analysed by the BBC, and is not reported or highlighted as important in any particular sense by the BBC. We're not actually citing the BBC, we're citing Alistair Darling. The fact that it was on the television and not on a website somewhere does not make it not a primary source.

I'm assuming the third is the footnote, reference 25, which is not a source at all. Kahastok talk 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said which was which. The first is the Barnett paper (#1) used for the train speed mentioned in the picture caption. The second is the Hemenway paper (#3) and the third is the Daily Telegraph article (#17) about rejection of metric road signs. I agree with you that the BBC one (#9) is, effectively, a primary source and #25 is a non-source. Ornaith (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly convincing evidence, is it? Number 3 is 33 years old, has two pages on metrication (98 and 99) and does not mention any form of transport in those pages. Number 1 is 20 years old and only barely mentions metrication at all. It is only useful for a factoid whose relevance in the grand scheme of the topic as a whole (the naming of a particular kind of train) is debatable at best. Both were prepared as government reports (hence my not having counted them). I agree with you that it's difficult to see this as in any sense evidence of notability. Kahastok talk 17:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks notable to me, and is a relevant content fork. As noted, it's a high priority article for several wikiprojects, and while it is the less glamorous end of the spectrum, it's rather at the important end. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the fact that an editor rated it as "high" for a WikiProject is more important than the fact that it can never meet basic policy requirements? Unless you have some evidence that it can meet those policy requirements, I don't think that's a reasonable way of judging notability. If we can prevent even clearly non-notable articles from being deleted by rating it high importance in a WikiProject, nothing will ever get deleted. Kahastok talk 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously a useful and well-researched article. The idea that it should be deleted seems to me lunacy. I cannot understand why some people seem to see it as their life's work to go around removing good information from Wikipedia on the most narrow, legalistic and nit-picking grounds. As for the sources, how can things like EEC regulations and government documents not be reliable sources in a matter such as this? This AfD is against all common sense. -- Alarics (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable? Yes, for what they say. But they're not reliable sources for an editor's original interpretation of them, which comprises a large proportion of this article. There are good reasons why does not allow us to write large amounts of text based purely on primary sources, or primary-source only articles.

One of our core policies is that we are not a publisher of original research. It's not legalistic or nit-picking to suggest that we ought to actually follow the principles that we say we hold most important in our writing. This article does not and can never follow those principles, because there simply aren't the secondary sources that would allow us to base a non-OR article on. Kahastok talk 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended notification

I was the only interested party who was notified when this artcile was proposed for deletion. I have now decided to let everybody who has contributed to this article (or to its Talk page) know that the article has been proposed for deletion. In accordance with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, I have notified all those who have contributed (apart from those who have already posted on this page) and only those. Moreover the notification was just that - a notification and nothing more. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that I feel that this is likely a violation of WP:CANVASS's prohibition of votestacking, and would ask the closing admin to consider this in the close. It is unusual to announce a deletion discussion a topic to every single editor that has ever edited an article (even those whose only contributions were automated or stylistic). Kahastok talk 17:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, this is why people get so annoyed at en.wp, the love of procedure over actual practicality. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going about telling people, "Proposed deletion of article to which you have contributed", when the user's only contribution was to fix a typo and ask for a ref four months ago? There's a limit to what constitutes reasonable notification, and I think this is well over it. (Of course, Martin didn't notify all those who participated, but that's another story). Kahastok talk 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Kahastok actually read WP:CANVASS he would realise that by contacing everybody, I was not votestacking. If I missed anybody out, that was an error on my part (unless of course they had already contribited to this debate or were Bots in which case the ommission was deliberate). Maybe Kahastok would be good enough to tell me who I missed out and I will let them know. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phadke Road[edit]

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

No sign of notability.No references at all. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has no context and fails WP:OBVIOUS. Normally this could be remedied but here the topic doesn't appear in any way encyclopaedic and there is nothing to work with. In fact the nominator is being generous: the article is probably liable for WP:SPEEDY as A1: "no context". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While obviously an article on a road could meet the general notability guidelines, equally obviously this one doesn't, as it contains nothing other than unsubstantiated personal opinions. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as failing WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete Wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. This article has no notability problems, because no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists. This article can be deleted because it fails WP:V, as per our WP:Deletion policy. The real problem here, IMO, is with the WMF, when this article should not have been allowed in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for anyone here to provide evidence that the aticle fails notability. Rather, it is the job of the article's editors to make the case for notability, which clearly hasn't been done, and from my searching would be difficult; WP:V is neither here nor there. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a policy. What is the source of your opinion? Unscintillating (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR, like WP:V, is a content policy; not a notability guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may of course choose to support the article's deletion on the grounds of notability, but I'm supporting its deletion on the grounds of original research. I really don't understand why you're arguing the toss with me, as we're both in favour of deletion. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists" - No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. If you honestly think it does then I strongly suggest you re-read WP:N and WP:NOR - and also read WP:ONUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reason requires evidence, otherwise it is opinion. If I have mis-stated a policy or guideline, then please identify the text, this will in turn allow a reasoned discussion to follow. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Wikilinks previously cited, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:ONUS (better known as WP:BURDEN), are all part of the content policies. The lede of WP:N states, "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article". There is more at WP:NNC, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". This is also a handy place to find Category:Wikipedia_content_policies. There is more at WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Hope this helps. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article cannot be produced, and in this case they haven't been and likely can't be, then the subject by definition fails the notability test. Your "good faith" assumption that such sources must exist, just that nobody's yet managed to find them, while it may earn you brownie points at the Gates of Heaven, doesn't here on terra firma. But as I've already said, notability isn't really the issue here; the article in its curent state is simply an essay, completely unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:N guideline says that an absence of citations does not indicate non-notability. Therefore, there is no failure of the notability test. This is also known by the phrase, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Saying that sources "must" exist is not what I said, I said that in the absence of evidence, we assume as per good faith that they exist. An absence of evidence no more tells us that sources exist, than it tells us that they don't exist. Also, I agree with the previous comment, "notability isn't really the issue here". Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't referring to an absence of citations, I was referring to an absence of independent reliable sources that address this topic. In any event, as we seem to be broadly in agreement there's seems little point in prolonging this discussion. George Ponderevo (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Bin Al Hadi Asasi[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. No Secondary source to claim notability. The citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports). DBigXray 10:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manit Dani[edit]

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

PROD tag removed with no explanation. Original reason given for PROD (with which I agree): "It's not entirely clear what it is he's supposedly notable for, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO." Singularity42 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as editor who PROD'd the article. Note that the same anon IP just removed the AFD (which I've since reverted); I expect to see a lot more of this before this AFD closes. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Z.D. Smith[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because independent reliable sources are not forthcoming, let alone to the extent that they might support an encyclopedic biography. Alternative criteria at WP:NACTOR are decidedly not in favor of this subject's notability: insignificant roles in more notable films, more significant roles in relatively insignificant films. WP:ANYBIO is also far away. It's WP:TOOSOON to call this subject notable. JFHJr (㊟) 08:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to do searches on a name like Matt Smith or even Z.D. Smith (I used the latter), but I can't find any coverage in the mainstream press on this person. IMDb seems to reflect what the nom says, that Smith either has small roles or perhaps bigger roles but in non-notable films. Even with edits by the subject himself, the article has no reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject himself. There's only one source in the entire article, and it's about one of the non-notable movies (I couldn't read what the source article says as Wayback wasn't working when I tried). Even the subject admits, he's trying to promote himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Aside from the brilliant message on my talk page, a look at the edits by Zedudems (talk · contribs) indicates a single purpose account for self-promotion across related pages. That's not a great reason for deletion on its own, but it's additive and explains why the article even exists in the first place. JFHJr (㊟) 17:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I checked the references listed in the article. None were reliable secondary sources. I then did my own online search and did not find any reliable secondary sources about Z.D.Smith.Coaster92 (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bargas[edit]

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

Sad and tragic death but no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, nor much sources for GNG besides his brain cancer diagnosis Delete Secret ^account 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was an athlete with the Minnesota Twins. A major league player with a major league team is quite notable. Article needs to be KEEP and expanded. 76.105.101.68 (talk)

He never played in the Majors with the Twins. Played in Rockies minor league system and was then traded to Twins but never played anywhere in their organization. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the outcome pointed to by WP:ATHLETE. This outcome should not be seen as a sign of disrespect to Bargas's memory, family, or friends. Bigturtle (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eight wins over two years in the low minors is non-notable. I was intrigued by the notation of his being second team All-Ivy League until I realized it was a HS league. MisfitToys (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic story of otherwise non-notable minor league baseball player who died from rare form of brain cancer. Never played in MLB, therefore not presumed to be notable per WP:BASE/N. Potentially notable per WP:GNG, but all substantive coverage in national or regional newspapers seems to be related to his illness or death, and, to my way of thinking, his notability for Wikipedia purposes is thus precluded per WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BIO1E. I second Bigturtle's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concede he didn't have Derek Jeter's level of fame, but drafted by one MLB team and affiliated with another is definitely more than a local HS player. Antares33712 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a minor leaguer is not notable. Sadly, neither is dying of cancer. Putting the two together still does not provide notability. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad, sad story, but A-ball is a long way from the majors. EricEnfermero | Howdy! 14:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulah Alhamiri[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now released) with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports) DBigXray 06:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soft deletion because of little amount of discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Alliance Recordings[edit]

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

Non-notable record company. All sources are WP:SELFPUB or blogs. GrapedApe (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no GHits of significance from reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural speedy close without a decision one way or another. We dont waste time discussing deletion until there is someone who believes the article should be deleted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First Deletion resulted in keep. Recreated based on a a challenge to the process. Wanted to close the circle by nominating that page again for notability, even if I disagree. Casprings (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither in whole nor in any part does your nomination make any sense to me. There is no "circle", whether whole or almost whole. Nominating a page for notability makes no sense, and so far as I can start to guess at what it might mean, this doesn't sound like what an AfD nomination is for. If you disagree with a course of action, please save others a lot of time by not carrying it out. ¶ I'd close this AfD pronto as totally incoherent, if it weren't for the fact that I (perhaps rather too energetically) spoke for "keep" the first time around and might be accused of having some axe to grind. I warmly invite some uninterested editor to do what these minor qualms prevent me from doing. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. This might have been a stupid thing to do. The debate over this fascinated me. I admit that I started the article on her because I thought the Limbaugh controversy was unfair. However, the debate over the notability was something that I found interesting for the lack objective standards, at least in my view. I brought this here because I read that deletion reviews don't stop someone from using AfD and also because the last AfD was to endorse the deletion. I thought it would be a good final forum to give a debate. That said, I should not have did this and it was bad judgement. Casprings (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was author had the article moved into their userspace. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 08:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheongye Kwan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single school. This is the third time with all the same arguments and submitted after discussion at the Martial arts project. More than enough information is already included in a subsection of the Barry Cook page.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barry Cook There's nothing to show this art has received significant coverage from independent sources or meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Most of the sources given are not independent and seem to refer to Barry Cook, the art's founder. The section on this art that's already in the Barry Cook article is sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's the best plan as I'm considering AfDing Barry Cook. I only see one or two good refs in that article, the image is a possible copyvio, and the whole thing from beginning to external links section is very promotional, which fits with the style of references (mostly promos and bios for his acting and business careers). Also, the main contributor is User:Hjc2012 who likely has a COI. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tallia Storm[edit]

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

Primarily Fails WP:BLP1E - she supported Elton John on one single Tour Date - Otherwise also failing WP:MUSIC. Generally not widely notable - no bias to article recreation if she happens to score a top 40 album or single... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think if her notability was judged only on her published music output, you would have a good point. But the quantity of media references suggest that she is notable for a variety of other reasons. We may never hear of her again, but I think she has made her mark. --Iantresman (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She just about escapes WP:BLP1E due to the coverage of her as a fashion icon/celebrity, which suggests she has continuing fame fter the one event. However, her career is so short that it's hard to tell if she'll have lasting renown. If it's deleted, I would suggest userfy/incubate in case she does have a career in the future. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion Icon/Celebrity angle appears misleading - A mixture of misused primary sources, secondary sources with no actual content (Elle, Daily Mail), and unreliable secondaries. When you cut that out there is little beyond the one event (of note). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you expanding on the use of sources on the Tallia Storm talk page.--Iantresman (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied at Talk:Tallia_Storm#Use of Sources but it's reasonably relevant to this discussion as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2012 (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) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the originator may be correct. --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Ultimate Marvel characters. (Non-admin closure) Till 01:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Stark[edit]

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

Minor character, just a couple of story arcs. No out-of-universe information (perhaps there's none noteworthy beyond the trivial "it's a character from this and this storyline"). Cambalachero (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ultimate Marvel characters per WP:ATD. Yes, I realize that list currently has no detailed character info, but it would be most in line with our previous WP:OUTCOMES to make one big list article out of a bunch of not-individually-notable articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2012 (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) 02:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Would support deletion in this instance since there isn't much reliable and useful information here, let alone anything that would WP:Verify notability. Merge with the possibility someone can do something with it. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barker Turner[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for a stand-alone article - perhaps a redirect to his only major role (Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2) would be the best option? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps we can find enough more-than-trivial mentions about his stage and film work through the 200+ google news results to justify inclusion under WP:ENT. And rather than consider only Blair Witch 2, it seems he had the lead role of Charlie in Seducing Charlie Barker (simply awaiting an article), which itself appears to have enough available to meet WP:NF,[12] which could lead to him being seen as meeting WP:ENT. I am not (yet) stating a keep or a delete per WP:Ghits... simply suggesting we consider possibilites for article improvement. The nom's concerns look to be addressable and we may indeed have just enough to include him here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 18 June 2012 (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) 02:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bath salts (drug)[edit]

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

Delete - This article is one of at least three that address extremely closely related topics, including methylenedioxypyrovalerone and Ivory Wave. Suggest transferring any relevant new content (if there is any) to the scientific name article, deleting this article, and recycling the name as a redirect to the scientific name article. Metacommentary - the creator and principle editor of this article has repeatedly deleted speedy deletion and merge tags and has not yet engaged in the conversation about duplicating content vs. redirects in a way that indicates he meaningfully understands the purpose of those tags. The rationale he has repeatedly used goes like, this is what this drug is called now so this name deserves its own article. I wholeheartedly disagree with that rationale in the context of Wikipedia, and suggest he contribute to one of the existing articles and let his page stand as a redirect. Merging the other articles is a topic for separate community input. erie lhonan 03:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original author of the article. Bath salts is the name of the parent structure for designer drugs containing synthetic cathinones, which have effects similar to amphetamine and cocaine.^[1]^[2]^[3] The white crystals resemble legal bathing products like epsom salts.^[1] Bath salts are sold under a variety of product names, such as, but not limited to: hurricane charley, ivory wave, monkey dust and vanilla sky.^[1]The article is well cited and has the potential to expand, which is all that is required for an article to stay on Wikipedia. On a side note, if someone can find an image we can use in the article it would be appreciated! JunoBeach (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c Black, Matthew (25 June 2012). "What are 'bath salts'? A look at Canada's newest illegal drug". CBC News. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
^ Spiller HA, Ryan ML, Weston RG, Jansen J (2011). "Clinical experience with and analytical confirmation of "bath salts" and "legal highs" (synthetic cathinones) in the United States". Clinical Toxicology. 49 (6): 499–505. doi:10.3109/15563650.2011.590812. PMID 21824061.
^ Coppola M, Mondola R; Mondola (2012). "Synthetic cathinones: Chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of a new class of designer drugs of abuse marketed as "bath salts" or "plant food"". Toxicology Letters. 211 (2): 144–149. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.009. PMID 22459606.

Keep As mentioned in the past discussion [13] I informed the nominator of on the talk page for this article, bath salts can be made of things other than methylenedioxypyrovalerone. Even the article says that: In the United States, similar descriptions have been used to describe mephedrone, methylone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone. And bath salts is the name the media normally uses. "Ivory Wave" has 613 Google news archive search results, while "bath salts" has 18,200. Ivory Wave is just one type of bath salts. It gets enough coverage on its own to justify its own article though. Dream Focus 10:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bath salts and methylenedioxypyrovalerone are not equivalent. As mentioned above, the term "bath salts" is used for a variety of different drugs, only one of which is methylenedioxypyrovalerone. I think it is a good idea to have a separate article for Bath salts (drug) because of its increasing relevance in drug control policy and common appearances in mass media.-- Ed (Edgar181) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'bath salts' is a catch all for any designer drug sold in a packet - as the references in the article show this is often cathinones but can include many different compounds. I had previously thought that a stand alone article was unnecessary, but in the last year, and increasingly since the miami cannibal attack the use of 'bath salts' in sources has skyrocketed. Each compound should have an article, but this should discuss the wider implications and reasons for them appearing. I suggested that this was created three weeks ago. Most significantly, scholarly sources are routinely using 'bath salts' as the two references that JunoBeach has linked to demonstrate. SmartSE (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is this a joke? i don't see the needs for this article to be deleted.Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously not, but it does appear to be snowing. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but methylenedioxypyrovalerone, Ivory Wave, and Bath salts should be merged. Aykantspel (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – methylenedioxypyrovalerone and Ivory Wave are specific drugs while Bath salts is about a family of drugs hence these three articles should be kept seperate. Boghog (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as explained above by Edgar181. Definitely relevant. Suggest next sysop to pass by to snow close. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Prioryman (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to be well sourced with this name used as a subject in many independent writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator seems wholly absorbed in the attitude I met when trying to add material to several related articles. If anyone would like to peruse that contention, check out Talk:Ivory Wave#Text linking this substance to the Miami cannibal attack. Some editors seem to be of the strong opinion that Wikipedia should merely echo scientific journals on topics towards which such publications have a bearing. I think the activism from these editors is detrimental to Wikipedia and should be countered forcefully as appropriate. __meco (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't seen this but I just added info about the Miami incident. As you can see, it was sensible to wait to include this until more was known, since no bath salts were actually found in Eugene. You might like to read WP:OTTO to see why we should try to use academic sources rather than newspapers as well. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the concern, but we, as a community, have laid out a benchmark for verifiability and established a process of vetting sources which applies uniformly across the article space. It simply isn't tenable that part of this space should be siphoned off and subjected to a different, and more exacting, standard than what goes for everything else. Of course there will be mishaps and transgressions. That's in the cards. Those may or may not be reasons for tightening our requirements, across the board. But an effort, such as this, focused on a limited scope of the article corpus, I don't find it constructive or appropriate even. __meco (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Oropeza[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. 'Sam Oropeza' is not "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The article includes unreliable references including blog entries. No results for the subject on Google Books, with very minimal, trivial local news coverage. --IShadowed 03:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This fighter is listed as one of the fighters in the List of Bully Beatdown episodes, and i figure an article should have been made for him. That's all. Thebestofall007 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that this is the article's creator. --IShadowed 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about an MMA fighter that does meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. I don't see anything to show his appearance in an episode (that didn't air in the U.S.) of an MTV show meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP: GNG, since all of the sources are not considered reliable. I should probably also point out that those notability guidelines are merely an essay, not the actual policy here, but he still fails WP: ATHLETE. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomofest[edit]

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

just found yet another highly nonnotable convention or festival. this is for all purposes something a group of people made up one day, and are using this to promote the event. no notability indicated by the refs whatsoever. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Reliable Source references provided, and none found on searching. This non-notable festival is described as "quadrennial"; what that apparently means is that they did it for the first time in 2008 and are now planning to do it again. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Zinchenko[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This remains valid. He is yet to play in a fully pro league, or internationally for Kyrgyzstan, and he has not received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's been called up as the third-string goalkeeper for an international friendly match; that's not enough. Article shows no sign of passing the general notability guideline either. Jogurney (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully professional league or represented his country at seniorlevel, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baldwin (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable football has only played a few games at semi-pro level. PROD was contested on the grounds that it should be merged to a non-existent article. Delete rationale remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't make it clear, but it seems he never played a competitive first-team fixture for either Stockport or Port Vale. Googling doesn't turn up anything of note either. It's looking like a delete. Interplanet Janet (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per guidelines. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully professional league which fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma Valley Opportunities and Challenges Cheese Conference[edit]

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

nonnotable conference tangentially related to a university, organized by a food company of relatively low importance. no indications given its notable, no references provided. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be of local non-importance and there is certainly no wider sphere of notability. There are no reliable sources provided and I found none upon a brief search (and I have to say that their PR representatives don't seem to be very active either). There's plenty of blogs, etc., that testify that the event exists; this is not the same as its being notable. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly not notable enough. But I wouldn't mind attending. Mcewan (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, & Redirect, the subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the event does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT. That being said, the content, what verified content that may exist (which there appears to be none at the present time), maybe able to be merged into Cuisine of California.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks verifiable sources therefore failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 6[edit]

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

article clearly shows this is a highly nonnotable term in this context, unlike the monty python link provided. no references provided show any evidence for notability to permit an article to be written. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 7: Delete Rule 6. Urban Dictionary has not one but two listings for Rule 6,[14][15] but this particular one is so inconsequential, it isn't included in either. Nor has anybody else picked up on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <lame>That does explain why six was afraid of seven.</lame> - Sudo Ghost 06:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No articles other then those with reliable sources, passing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC will be tolerated. Any deletion consensus will result in the article being asked to leave the encyclopedia for the remaining time of the Internet. (But in all seriousness, the article fails WP:GNG, with no independent third-party reliable sources showing any notability. The Red Lion Inn doesn't show this being notable, and the other three sources are not reliable sources.) - Sudo Ghost 05:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, Chris is a fairly reliable source for fannish matters; but even taking his contribution into account, and much as I love fan history, this simply doesn't add up to genuine notability for a global dictionary project. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is the dictionary. This project is the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kayleigh McEnany[edit]

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

Persion does not appear notable. Searching Google Books with the term "Kayleigh McEnany" turns up only one book, which in turn only contains a brief mention. Google News and Google News archives only turn up articles written by her, and one article about a different Kayleigh McEnany (a cheerleader). The lack of independent, reliable coverage shows that McEnany probably does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet notability guidelines and additionally lacks reliable references to verify claims of notability. --IShadowed 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with IShadowed, doesnt appear notable at this time.Racingstripes (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Kayleigh whenever she's on Red Eye, but I don't think she's notable enough for Wikipedia. I did some Google searches to find some evidence of notability with nothing promising. Third party mentions beyond industry-specific sites (such as IMDB and Mediaite) don't turn up, and her website realreaganconservative.com redirects to her own website. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Witlaw Mugwiji[edit]

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

A Zimbabwean student leader who was beaten by the police[16] falls under an unnotable WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge it to the Movement for Democratic Change of Zimbabwe. Maybe they have a list of victims in their struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe. --Artene50 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 01:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is the president of a minor organization the leadership of which does not convey notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Muhammed Abdel Aziz[edit]

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

On a released guantanamo prisoner, no secondary coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Tagged for lack on Natability since Aug 2011. The subject is already included in the List Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay DBigXray 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search of "Abdullah Muhammed Abdel Aziz" doesn't produce anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, primary sources and very brief entries in databases. Notability isn't established. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing is there in the article which makes the person notable. Being captured and then transferred built zero notability. →TSU ^tp* 14:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi[edit]

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

On a released guantanamo prisoner, no secondary coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Tagged for lack of Notability since Aug 2011. The subject is already included in the List Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay DBigXray 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Guantanamo" gets 134,000 hits on Google News. Are we to believe that this is because of the architecture of the internment facility there? Or perhaps the guards, or their uniforms? A score or two of Gitmo prisoner articles have been deleted, first on the basis of an outdated interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY rule that forbad all primary sources, and now an invocation of GNG that clearly contradicts the facts. Guantanamo prisoners have always been notable, and are a clear case for WP:IAR to bypass the contradiction with GNG. The article, like all Guantanamo prisoner articles, has been savagely cut, from a 32k article down to only 2k bytes,

Either the sincerity or competence of this notability-based deletion nomination is in question. Offering the inclusion of the article's subject in a list as a consolation prize to inclusionists is incompatible with the basis of the nomination, as list components must be notable in their own right. Which is it? Is this article notable, or is its inclusion in a list and therefore on WP altogether still threatened? Anarchangel (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, list components don't have to be notable in their own right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. That point would have been useful to my arguments on many an occasion. Better late than never, and besides, then I can strike out the second part of my comment, and maybe someone will look past it and answer one or more of the points I made in the first part. Where is the rule you speak of, exactly? Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the exact WP:ALPHABETSOUP, but it's been mentioned in many places that things that aren't necessarily notable as stand-alone articles can be included in lists that cover their topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guantanamo might well get 134,000 google news hits, but notability is not inherited. The article fails the policies and guidelines laid out by the nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not inherited from what, exactly?

An American base in Cuba is something of an anomaly, I will concede. But 134K? I think it is Gitmo that inherits notability from its inmates? Hmm, how might I test that? Let's see, coverage before the year 2001 might be good. 10,000 hits for the over 98 years between 1/1/1903, the year the base was founded, and 9/11/2001, the year, you know, that thing, happened. Google hits for the less than 11 years between 9/11 and today now total 136,000. I won't be arguing that these numbers are extremely accurate, I guess. Like it matters. Around 100 a year to well over 10,000 a year. Gitmo prisoners are 100 times as notable as their prison? Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply "Every Inmate of Guantanamo, is de facto notable"? I have to say that Bushranger is perfectly reasonable in his arguments above--DBigXray 10:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, please see WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Notability is not inherited, and articles on living people need particularly strong referencing to be worthy of inclusion. Ignoring an absence of references is totally unacceptable in regards to BLP articles, as we have a presumption of privacy for individuals. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due process is not a violation of privacy, and what is repeatedly dismissed as PRIMARY is a record of what due process has been afforded. Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no individual coverage beyond routine serial publications of detainee papers; not enough biographical info to base a responsible BLP article on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being one of dozens/hundreds/whatever isn't notable in the slightest, we're not talking about leaders here who have received boatloads of coverage, these guys have near, zero, and what is out there is just "he was captured, he's held here" stuff. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films Roger Ebert gave Zero Stars[edit]

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

Even if technically verifiable, this seems a rather trivial point to write an article on. Even being as important a film critic as he is, I feel that having this article may also give undue weight to Ebert's views. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While interesting, not really a topic of lasting importance. Borock (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being considered bad by one particular critic isn't all that notable. It has to be all-time historically awful. "Roger Ebert's list of most hated films" is already cited as one of the "reputable sources" used in compiling the list of films considered the worst. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lends undue weight to the opinions of a single individual. Police Academy?!?! Roger, what were you thinking? Carrite (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to turn this into a category. I suggest to move to "Category:Films that Roger Ebert gave Zero Stars" or merge into Roger Ebert. Regards, RomeEonBmbo 16:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial list. Either merge to Roger Ebert or delete without prejudice. Ebert is notable enough. --Artene50 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTOPINION. Warden (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ebert's most negative reviews have drawn something of a cult following, with three books of reviews with two stars or less. However, this doesn't make "Ebert gave this movie a really bad review" a defining characteristic for a list or category. Why not a list of his four-star reviews, then? This list is a clear case of WP:INTERESTING. szyslak (t) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's getting Dangerously Close to time to give this puppy Last Rites and call in The Exterminator. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kooley High[edit]

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

It is an extremely obscure hip hop group, that does not fit Wikipedia's requirements according to WP:Notability. There are no well-known or liable sources. Looking at the edit history, all edits seem to be from the band themselves. The article is completely biased, and it has absolutely no negative criticism. The article is also arranged extremely poorly. Marqueesigns (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the arrangement of the article and lack of criticism are no reasons for a deletion but wholesale lack of any reliable sources certainly is. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given--youtube, myspace and vimeo, etc--are not WP:RS and don't establish this group's WP:N. --Artene50 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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