The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowther (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not appeat to meet WP:PROF. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a note that "Professor" in this context indicates a significantly more distinguished career than that of the average academic in the department; according to the departmental website, Crowther is the Chair of philosophy at NUIG. Skomorokh 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Being Chair does not automatically qualify under WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's something of a non sequitur considering my remark never implied anything to the contrary. Skomorokh 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why mention it at all?? --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. WikiScholar proves that Crowther's monographs are widely cited. --David Ludwig (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This search seems to work better for me (scholar.google.co.uk "Paul Crowther" -physics) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep. The citation data mentioned above by David Ludwig are misleading, as they mainly concern another person with the same name (an astronomer). If one adds "philosophy" to the Google Scholar search, we find, in fact, very little citability. In addition to the above citation data, I just added a source to the article: one of his books was reviewed in the Times Higher Education and according to WorldCat that book is present in 398 libraries in the US alone. (If I could find this one item after searching for only 1 or 2 minutes, there likely is much more). --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, I didn't mean the astronomy papers but his monographs such as The Kantian Sublime or Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism --David Ludwig (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hah! My search only yielded very low citation counts in the single digits. But The Kantian Sublime does not come up if you search for "Paul Crowther" as I did. GS shows yet again its unreliability... Thanks for your correction! --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In my view passes WP:Prof #1,. Sufficient evidence of notability via his publications and their reviews. (19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep because of influence. MiRroar (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What influence? noq (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. GS cites for appropriate topic give 97, 61, 38, 22, 16... h index = 8, so some influence is shown. How does this compare with others in the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - notable races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

United States House of Representatives elections, 2006 - notable races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - notable races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - all US House of Representatives elections are notable per the general notability guidelines. These articles take an editor-formulated concept (an election is notable if the seat changed party hands and/or was considered "competitive" by someone and/or "became competitive" according to someone) as its premise, which is original research. These elections are already covered in other articles and there need not be endless articles on every possible permutation on how to divide up the set. PROD removed by article creator. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Are You The Cow Of Pain? Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to the main article. A much simpler approach would be to put an asterisk next to each seat that switched parties, in the article that already covers all of these elections: United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. First Light (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AYTCOP says it best-- all U.S. House of Representatives races are notable, and it's purely a matter of opinion when it comes to which ones are "more notable", another way of saying "interesting". Mandsford 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete House members from states all have the same powers given to them by election, the rest is at the discretion of the House as a whole, so no election is per se more important than another and the articles and their titles are necessarily reliant on opinion. Hekerui (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Are you people crazy? Your removing tons of information, you can DELETE as long as all information is retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.22.13 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emine Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

None to few related articles, no references, no external information from Google. Whenaxis (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Historical figure. It's a stub article, needs work. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Emine exist and their story is true. I'll post, English articles. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/turkey/i403.html#I403

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616205317/www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey11.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dilek2 (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What kind historical figure? What did she actually do? "She supported the activities of her husband" is the only assertion, and that is unreferenced and overly vague. The two references above by Dilek2 (one is just a copy of the article's external link) simply show that she existed, with no more than basic geneological information given. Sure, we give articles to nobodies if they are close in line of succession to a major throne, but 1) if she was close in line of succession to the Ottoman throne, it's not stated (and she was the youngest of several siblings), and 2) the Ottoman Sultanate expired before she did, anyway. There is a Emine Sultan Hotel, which I guess is named after her. It has ten rooms. No prejudice against re-creation if "support[ing] the activities of her husband" included presonally making a significant contribution to the struggle, providing references can be provided. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This source is from Ancestry.com and may be a WP:SPS, but even if it is not then it only meets WP:RS by WP:ASF. Therefore meeting of WP:V is questionable. User:Herostratus questions this person's notability with good reasons. In addition to his reasons her father's page says she was from his fifth wife and not one of the ten children recognized by the imperial house. There is no indication that actions of her life have notability, and her being born to the leader of a major empire does not make her notable because of Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Blue Rasberry 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual resource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

a dictionary definition. May have some currency as a term in Economics, but none that I can see as worthy of a stand-alone article. As always, more than happy to be proved wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I had a brief and small go at trying to prove you wrong when this was first listed, but failed to find any economics text that defined such a concept as claimed here. All that I could find were the normal usages of the adjectives "actual" and "potential" applied to the concept of a natural resource. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like Uncle G above (who didn't provide a comment summary, but can probably be counted as a Delete !vote), a fairly superficial search found nothing beyond the use of "actual resource" in a non-technical sense, e.g. "...actual resource prices are a result of..." (where "actual" modifies "prices"), that sort of thing. Anyway, the current article itself is really not sufficient to constitute a proper article. No prejudice against re-creation if real references can be provided. Herostratus (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Home, Jaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - There appear not to be reliable sources that establish the independent notability of this episode; fails WP:GNG. What isn't a WP:PLOT violation is original opinion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is some discussion of the episode in this book, along with a preview in this newspaper article. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The book devotes about two sentences to the episode and two more to the series. The newspaper article is the sort of "here's a new show" article that every TV series pretty much gets. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that if after two weeks no one has cared enough to express an opinion in favor of this article that is a pretty good indication that the original nomination is correct. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questys Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Jebo949 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Contested" prod. Subject is "manufacturer of software and systems for document management, scanning, and paperless office solutions." Refs are self-referential/dead/give passing mention. No substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No showing of technical importance or long term historical notability. Yet another back office tech business spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 2 of the refs doesn't work, the rest is not sufficient, Gnews either, therefore per nom. Dewritech (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to Buddhist anarchism. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Jujutacular ^talk 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Neologism, any meaningful content can be covered at Buddhist anarchism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into Buddhist anarchism. It doesn't look like much more can be said about this; it's yet another one-off social theory without serious study or academic recognition. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Kerry Wendell Thornley. Some Google Books discuss it but only related to the author and as parody, as opposed to substantive coverage in reliable sources treating this as philosophical school or tradition. Hekerui (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the author's page. Some few mentions in Google books and some passing mentions in Google News or Google Scholar aren't enough for a standalone article when there is an author's article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD'd as a run-of-the-mill shopping plaza —fetch·comms 23:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon-Aire Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No indication why this plaza is important. No sources, no third-party coverage. Possibly a stub, but useful?? — Timneu22 · talk 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside the nom JForget 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There's a reason we have categories. This page is a list of lists, and doesn't actually contain encyclopedic content. —fetch·comms 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lists of lists are specifically allowed for at WP:STAND#Lists of lists. And WP:CLS tells us very clearly that categories do not supersede lists and that we should not delete one to promote the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of lists is just fine. It would be a different discussion if these were NN or redlinked, but they're not. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is pretty clear here, although the article could use some references (the links at the bottom were just that: links, not references). Also, as GuillaumeTell pointed out, why is only this discography being singled out? Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This seems to be an indiscriminate catalogue or directory contrary to WP:NOTDIR. If people want to buy a recording of this work, there are plenty of commercial sites that will supply this information. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Q to nominator: Could you specify what makes this list "indiscriminate", compared to less offending discographies? East of Borschov 22:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems indiscriminate in that it seems intended to catalogue all such recordings, regardless of their merit or notability. Music of this sort is often performed and recorded. Per WP:NOTDIR, it is beyond our scope to catalogue all such instances in an indiscriminate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Discographies are not any old catalogue. Several such discographies are featured lists and there is no reason why this article could not eventually be improved to that level. Specifically in the case of opera articles, the practice has often been to separate large discographies out into separate articles in order to manage the size of the main article. In reply to CW's responce to East of Borschov above, a complete discography avoids making arbitrary decisions as to merit and notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can well understand that you might want to do this but such accumulation of exhaustive detail for its own sake is generally frowned upon. It is completism but we aim for a summary style. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not exhaustive detail. In opera discogs, including this one, decisions are made on which roles are important enough to be listed, pirated recordings not released by reputable companies are excluded etc. As and when this article attains featured list status, the lead section will be expanded and discussion will include whether any of these recordings have achieved major classical music awards etc. Organising a small contained set of material does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As for summary style, the splitting out of a contained subtopic (a discography) from the main article on a work of music actually confirms to that policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems unclear whether or how decisions are made. It appears that they are made without reference to reliable sources and so may constitute original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peter Cohen.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that this article is totally beyond the scope of Wikipedia as per WP:NOTDIR and should therefore be deleted. It's not even a case of the article needing additional work, it's just fundamentally too unfocused and wide-ranging for a discography article in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot see what in WP:NOTDIR directly pertains to a discography of this nature (and would like to see a discussion as to what exactly in NOTDIR this article contravenes) and also suspect that every item on the list this would pass notability in its own right for a separate article. Furthermore, as a way of avoiding POV decisions it is a sensible development from "Selected Recordings" sections and in that light to be commended IMO. almost-instinct 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion proposer seem to be unaware that discographies are part of modern scholarship. University libraries own recordings that have long ceased to be available commercially (and thus probably could not be found on commercial sites, as the proposer suggests). There are professional discographers, and they have their own scholarly journal (see [1]). And this is as it should be: part of our understanding of a work like Fidelio includes the various ways that artists have chosen to render it in performance. Opus33 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The journal you cite seems to be semi-professional, being open to private record collectors. In any case, many professionals keep catalogues of their exhibits, specimens, books and the like. It is not our purpose to reproduce these catalogues as we are not a database of that sort. Please see http://www.discogs.com for a site which supports such activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion immediately above. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Opus33. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. --Folantin (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter Cohen. Ozob (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Opus nailed it. This particular type of list is essential to the mission of our project. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If this information were important or essential, you would expect to find it in the main article about this opera. It seems to have been spun off separately because it is not essential. Colonel Warden (talk)

• The nominator being a member of the m:Association of Structurist Wikipedians, I would like to quote from this association's page: "Combining too much information in a single article discourages users from forging ahead with more detail and new ways of looking at the topic at hand.". These discographies were not spun off because they were not essential, but to improve readibility of the main article. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – What's next? Opera discographies and related categories/articles? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter cohen and Opus33. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter Cohen and Opus33 and numerous others. It is still not at all clear which of the prohibitions listed in WP:NOTDIR is being referred to, as none of them seems to fit. Furthermore, since there is a well-populated Category:Discographies, I'm wondering why this particular one is being singled out by the nom. --GuillaumeTell 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haspop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

In the past, consensus has been that participation on a reality show does not, in itself, make a person meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. In this case, I don't see the reliable independent sources to show that this person is well-known beyond his participation in this program. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish notability of this artist beyond appearing in the the televsion series (and even that was not widely covered outside NBC media). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I don't know if this is the right way to comment, but I was looking up Haspop online because I wanted to learn more about him since I think he's an amazing artist, and his Wikipedia page encourages users to comment on his page being flagged for deletion. I hope you will not delete it. Haspop is an excellent and very interesting artist. He has performed with Cirque du Soleil, which in itself is a huge artistic credential. I also want to add that there is something noteworthy simply in that he is one of very few Muslim dance/performance artists active in the US, and certainly one of extremely few Muslim performers advancing so far in a popular-format talent competition. Why delete? Let him stay. Obviously this isn't a direct comparison, but you know, were Van Gogh alive and painting today, he wouldn't make the Wikipedia cut for inclusion, either. Why don't you let Haspop stay and revisit the page in a year's time? Just a real user's 2-cents. Thanks! -Jen H., Malden, MA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.190.121 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alas, I often end up neutral when it comes to WP:ONEEVENT. But I'd just like to mention to the above IP that that's not the way Wikipedia works. Consider reading WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it article currently stands. I'm open to changing my mind with introduction of reliable sources plus indications of notability. The IP's (above) comments may be points that indicate some notability if they can be placed in context. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are two things to consider here: (1) whether the individual is notable enough for a stand-alone article, and, (2), whether (if not) his name merits a redirect to the tv show on which he is a semi-finalist. I have a weak keep opinion to the first and a strong keep opinion about the latter. :) First, I'll note that I've altered this article considerably. In addition to cleanup, I've added what reliable sources I can find and taken the source we had inline. I couldn't find much, searching both English and French news sources. But he does seem to have some notability aside from the show (winning championships in hip hop alone and with his group, though sourcing for the former is more dubious than the latter), and his appearance on the show has of course drawn some attention from French press, so it is more widely publicized than NBC media...internationally so. At this point, I think we should retain the content in the article for now and, if there are no firmer indications of notability in reasonable time, redirect it to the competition show. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while the sources provided are a little thin they establish that he's not notable simply for being on AGT but also as a competitive dancer both individually and as part of a crew. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I was just looking up Haspop and came across this page, I can't believe he is just becoming famous and you wish to delete the page. Fine just delete all of Wikipedia, what is it there for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.136.34 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In its original version as brought here I would have gone with Delete, and I think the nomination rationale was correct at the time. But I think Moonriddengirl's work has now provided enough to establish more than WP:ONEEVENT notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Koblizek (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some notability but still all related to WP:ONEEVENTCavafox (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He meets WP:GNG from his performances on America's Got Talent, and I would say that being a member of Cirque du Soleil pushes him just past the ONEEVENT bar. Resolute 04:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this article meets the notability guidelines, but if it is going to be deleted, you should wait to see if he reaches the finals or final stages of competition. If he is a finalist, then this article should be kept. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep Not a BLP1E, as cleanup and sourcing have shown. Improvements and enough else available to support this article remining and being further improved over time and through the couse of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very most it should be redirected to the current season of AGT. No need to delete it. For An Angel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HEAT Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable online game, reads like an advertisement. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and add a part about the game to Invictus Games. There was a bit of news coverage about the releasing of the game, but there was very little about it and it was probably just mentioned because of Project Torque. Most of the article was actually a copyright violation, which I have removed, which doesn't leave much content. This topic doesn't seem to be notable. --Slon02 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The HEAT Online page is an information page for the wikipedia encyclopedia about the game. It contains basic info, the official press release, system requirements, game features. Let the reader judge, what it is: information or advertisement. I thought giving information is good. Please remove from the deletion list/suggestion. Best,A_Lamborgh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete & Redirect to Invictus Games per Slon02. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is more suited as an "About" page on the game's website, not for Wikipedia. –MuZemike 02:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone wishing to transwiki can contact me and I will userfy the page for them for a limited time to facilitate their doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal and veterinary terms in Karimojong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listed above. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and then delete, this is a list of translations, and hence would make a valuable addition somewhere in Wiktionary. I'm not sure whether it would need to be split up into word-by-word translation entries, or if it would be allowed to stay in single-page format (I doubt it, but am not sure). I'll tag it for transwiki copying. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete per Quiddity and WP:NOT#DICT. --Slon02 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete here, if it goes to some other more appropriate wiki is a bonus. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RISCO Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no indication of notability. no independent WP:reliable sources. References appear to be to press releases. Contested prod. Google does not provide anything to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risco Group, known until 2005 as Rokonet, is one of the largest global security system creators (a competitor of Honeywell's intrusion detection systems). Several press releases are written by authorities in the security systems field. Please let me know which information must be deleted in order to meet Wikipedia's standards and keep the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.89.132 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only do they provide "solutions", they provide them globally! multinational company providing security solutions for the global market. The remaining article is devoted to a catalogue of the "solutions" they offer. Unambiguous advertising and no showing of historical, cultural, or technical significance: not an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are not independant, reliable secondary sources to support this comapny's notability. The few GNews articles are mainly from a single source and do not provide more than trivial coverage. To be included in Wikipedia, the article would need to have all its claims supported by reliable second-party sources. The company's own website, although it can be used as a source for basic facts, cannot be used as a source to establish notability. Read Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Verifiability for more information. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No sources to support notability. JNW (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete. The products and technologies have been removed from the page, and a source (dan & bradstreet) was added to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.25.210 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A one line directory listing does not establish notability. noq (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: just not notable. Dewritech (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unholy Alliance (WWF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There's a difference between a notable tag team and two notable wrestlers who just happened to be paired together. Short-lived and only covered in primary sources. Nikki♥311 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another case of trying to establish notability through WP:INHERITED. No independent sources at all to establish notability so it fails WP:N. Mal Case (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The team fails WP:GNG. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent sources to essatablish noteablity and not even a noteable tag team at that. Red Flag on the Right Side 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KANGARILA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

New golf format. No evidence of offered. Fractionally better than NFT. Author has blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable golf-based game. No independent RS coverage to speak of. _wjemather^bigissue 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as obvious promotion by COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A lot better than WP:NFT as it is an actual product for sale, reviewed or at any rate briefly described at a few site web site such as coolgadgets.com and technews.am (whatever that is). That said, these mentions are little more than on-line reposts of press releases, and there are no real stories about the game in newspapers or magazines, etc., or that sort of thing, that I can see. Herostratus (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esfahan Symposium on Laser Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contest prod. Seems to be just another small academic meeting. There's no evidence that it has had any lasting impact in the academic world - searching for it under its correct title yields only 44 hits. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteAs prod Nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. Although papers presented at the symposium are cited, there appear to be no sources about the symposium itself. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleazure Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very few reliable sources available to prove notability and even the claims of this article. I found it very close to being classified an advertisement. Request an AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is almost an advert for Facebook, but Facebook doesn't need publicity! It is, however, a how to guide and an essay, neither of which have a place on Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 80% of the article is a copyvio of http://www.facebook-search.com/about/, so I have gone the CSD route. If it survives speedy deletion with the removal of the copyvio, then the discussion here becomes one of notability (I do not view it as inherently notable). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At risk of making a fool of myself, I am now unsure whether this is anything to do with Facebook itself, or whether it is an independent website seeking to establish its own notability by placing a promotional article here.It appears to be http://www.facebook-search.com which could well be some third party utility page for Facebook. If so then this is blatant advertising as well as lack of notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's independent website and if you consider this as a blatant advertising, please, also delete following article too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(Facebook).

It describes similar website, but with restricted functionality comparing to Facebook Search website.

Also I will remove part of article which duplicates http://www.facebook-search.com/about/

Please, let me know if it's ok. Thank you.--DmitryO (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The other article you mention has coverage in reliable sources. This one does not. WIkipedia may not be used in order to establish a reputation. When that reputation is already established then an article is warranted. I am assuming that you have an intimate involvement with the site. It is unwise to create and edit articles where one has a conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't like it Jimzah32 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is definitely not a good reason for deletion (although I do agree with a delete). It's hard to tell where this article is even going. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll tell it like it is; it's just a Google custom search set up with the term "[subject] +facebook" (it doesn't even touch the actual Facebook API). That's not the hallmark of a site at all, it's just a domain squatter trying to get Google AdSense dollars from poor suckers who didn't know you could do that right from Google itself. Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I look at the site more carefully, you are completely right. Damn, I wish I'd thought of that myself!! On that basis, though my nomination for speedy deletion was declined, perhaps a passing admin might form a view that this is actually direct spam because using the page at all is likely to earn the site immediate Adsense revenue. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blog content is also scraped from the site AllFacebook so this site is a walking copyright violation. Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the above. this is a clear case of advertising. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frisky sour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide ttonyb (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia articles about foods are normally involved mainly with a discussion about the food itself, such as its history, and sometimes include information about its preparation, but this article is just a recipe and should be deleted. --Slon02 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply a recipe, which violates the rule that Wikipedia is not the place for how-to articles. From a Google search it appears there is no history or significance to discuss; all I can find is recipes - most of them very different from this one, being citrus-juice-based rather than soup-based. The recipe presented here was from a Campbell's cookbook of 1968; apparently it never caught on. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This person seems only to have nonnotable roles (he is not mentioned at imdb.com). So either it is a hoax or not notable according to WP:ENT. Fabian Hassler (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable actor with non-notable parts in a few films. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as unsourcable and definite hoax. Looking at the article and its assertions: No television show called Mercy Hospital... though there is Mercy (TV series). No actor named "Shell" or character named "Dr Brian Alcaz " in Mercy (TV series).[2] (I removed "The Shelly Shell" from the Wikipedia article as was entered June 18 by anon IP 86.70.220.25 as unsourcable)[3] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Stephanson " in Burn Notice.[4] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Greg Phillips" in The Unit.[5] No actor named "Shell" in Inception... their are two characters as "Business man", but neither of them is Shell.[6] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Jacky River" in Balls of Fury.[7] No actor named "Shell" or character named "military son" in The Marine.[8] No actor named "Shell" or character named "Sarah's friend" (or even a character named "Sarah") in Firewall (film).[9] And as for the AKA of "Tha Shelly Shell"... nothing but wikimirrors of this article. As hoaxs go, this BLP violation was not even a decent effort... just a time-waster. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ih8sn0w (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Doesn't appear to be a reliably sourced group. So its difficult/impossible to establish notability. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 -- role^player 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very obvious speedy delete. Haakon (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as I suggested earlier. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, db-web. Hairhorn (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7/DB-Web (tagged!) --ANowlin: talk 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sn0wbreeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable iPhone app. Only references provided are the app's own website and a blog. role^player 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - more references have now been added, however they are mostly blogs, as far as I can tell. Still no concrete sources. -- role^player 11:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what should i produce to prove this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.250 (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable third party sources. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Pretty much what RolePlayer said above. A google search yielded nothing concrete. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Changing to Redirect --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment assuming this is a jailbreaking tool, maybe it should just redirect to iOS jailbreaking? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a feeling that this might be a moot point but I'm going to put it forward, but is there any point in redirecting when very few people are going to type sn0wbreeze into the search bar? I see more people using jailbreaking as a search term rather than sn0wbreeze. Again, tell me if this is irrelevant to the AfD discussion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its turned into a redirect and noone uses it then it can be challenged again, but if it might be useful it doesn't seem like a big deal to do that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines; and do not redirect, as it won't be mentioned in the target article once it no longer has a non-redirect article. —Korath (Talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:VERIFY Jjupiter100^{(talk!|contribs)} 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus was to keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This list is not comprehensive and does not provide any useful information. There is no introduction, no subheadings to understand the regional language which the actor is part of and no mention about the time period the actor was active. The prominent actors has already been mentioned and listed in the article Cinema of India Sreejith K (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Those look like suggestions for improvement rather than a good reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Part of the wider scheme of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. As per Michig comments - you should tag the article with the necessary improvement tags and notify the relevant taskforces. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it could not be improved, i would say delete. but it can, it has clear inclusion criteria (not stated yet, but easily stated), it could provide an alternative to the category system. we have lots of such lists on WP, and they are fine to keep. and, there is no deadline for improving or perfecting articles. I will try to add some basic structure if it passes afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List clearly says that only for notable actresses, also if there is any issue with article we can fix that. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian film actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This list is not comprehensive and does not provide any useful information. There is no introduction, no subheadings to understand the regional language which the actor is part of and no mention about the time period the actor was active. The prominent actors has already been mentioned and listed in the article Cinema of India Sreejith K (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As with List of Indian film actresses, the arguments above look like areas for improvement rather than good reasons for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Part of the wider scheme of Category:Lists of actors by nationality. As per Michig comments - you should tag the article with the necessary improvement tags and notify the relevant taskforces. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per lugnuts and michig, and my statement at the actress afd. I will improve the article if it passes afd, by adding some hidden text, and a better lede.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can find lots similar list on WP, I think we can improve article, so not necessary to delete. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Holman Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

• Delete as nom. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity page without independent BLP sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable no reliable secondary sources that indicate why she is notable. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When a serious national newspaper considers that someone is so notable as to report the fact that she will not be doing something then I think that the case for deletion needs something stronger than unsubstantiated claims of "just not notable" or "vanity page". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have completely rewritten the article from reliable sources. The article is now fully verified and notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in view of the rewrite, I have relisted this debate and invited those who have contributed to revisit it. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Davewild. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm happy with the rewrite which I have now copyedited Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Musa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Premature page of young footballer who may or may not actually playing in a professional league. Has just signed his first professional contract, done nothing else of note in the scheme of things. Currently fails WP:NSPORTS. Coverage is of general sports journalism nature and local coverage of his signing his first pro contract. Suggested userfy to author pending player meeting NSPORTS criteria. ClubOranje^T 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article fails NSPORTS and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric O. Lodal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Autobiographical article, which once tagged was edited by a number of newly-created users - most likely sockpuppetry. Biker Biker (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article of non-notable footballer. Fails notability criteria for footballers per NSPORTS as amateur and not international rep. Coverage is general sports journalism of general nature of type expected for general local sports persons ClubOranje^T 09:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --ClubOranje^T 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.--ClubOranje^T 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Stuff.co.nz has nine articles with a trivial mention, doesn't yet meet GNG or ATHLETE. XLerate (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure if Mainland Premier League counts as a Fully professional league so I've asked on WikiProject Football.  Chzz  ►  17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC) (Struck - it does not; see below  Chzz  ►  22:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• resp: Mainland Premier League is not even the top level domestic league. Soccer_in_New_Zealand#Professional_football and the following paragraph, in conjuntion with the "Football in New Zealand" template at the bottom of the article should clearly answer the question.--ClubOranje^T 05:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly speaking this first bit is OR, but this image from a MPL game between Ferrymead Bays and Western doesn't convey the set-up I associate with a fully professional league. The Bays website also mentions that their captain is a warehouse manager "by day". Actually, I've just noticed that the link in this very article states Lewis' day job, making clear that he is not a professional footballer himself....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ....and the website of a MPL club clearly states "Wellington Phoenix is the only New Zealand-based professional club" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, agreed; thanks for clarifying that.  Chzz  ►  22:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet the inclusion criteria for sportsmen, because it is not a fully-professional league. Does not meet the general notability criteria, because there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources".  Chzz  ►  22:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Aporo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Possibly fails notability at WP:NSPORT —'...the sourcing in the article itself must document notability.This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.' This appears to be an article about a minor boxer; Listings show he has apparently lost most of his fights. He is listed in one ranking at #278 out of 323. No new WP:RS have been found about this person. Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; no significant coverage found, does not appear to be a fully professional-level athlete or satisfy WP:NSPORT. —fetch·comms 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom unless the author wants to userfy. Marcus Qwertyus 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any independent sources that show he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails to show notability and I didn't find any sources to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - Does not seem to satisfy WP:NSPORT - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This appears to be a hoax because I cannot find any class of bee under this context. The closest Ghit I can find is this, which is actually about a British beekeepers association. ("Quite obviously could be found in Britain?" Come on.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax. JJ98 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obvious hoax. Would have been candidate for csd if not brought here. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as blatant hoax, probably should have been Speedy'd. A8x (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to list of bees of Great Britain. It's a joke off of QI (see the youtube link an IP tried to add to the article). 98.122.178.110 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte - hoax as there are three types of bee in Britian and they have not died out. Redirect to list as per prev editor comment Chaosdruid (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service of the Imperial Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Might be notable perhaps cult film. Shows hits in torrent site but no WP:RS found in google search Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Film appears notable under multiple different titles which explains both the multitude of Torrent hit and lack of RS, I hereby withdraw my Nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source to the article. Soangry (talk) 2:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Time to use other Find sources, as this had international release under different translations of the name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Hong Kong - Cantonese title))

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Chinese) (Hong Kong - Original title))

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Hong Kong - Mandarin title)

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

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

• Keep Article improvement and sourcing has begun. The film has had multiple international releases on film, television, and DVD, over several years and under several different names. It is considered to have been the last absolutely successful martial arts film made by Shaw Brothers Studio before they closed in 1986, and considered one of the best of the 1980s, representing the "new wave" of Wuxia style at its best. Gonna take more work, but I believe it is do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Un Cuarto de Siglo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

not notable AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The band is highly notable. According to the notability guidelines for music, "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." That said, it's a bit late in my part of the world, so I'll see what I can find by way of sources later. We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias, and sources in other languages can sometimes be difficult to locate. Even if additional sources cannot be located to expand the article, as the deletion policy notes, "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." This band's album titles are valid search terms, and whether the album meets WP:MUSIC or not deletion is inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep How is an album celebrating 25 years of career not notable, this band had played for hundreds of thousands of people, has 8 gold discs, a movie, an Ariel Award, sadly this was the only source of notability for US media i could find as of now http://www.billboard.com/#/album/el-tri/un-cuarto-de-siglo/186839; If i`m not mistaken if the band is notable, the albums are notable besides.... there are articles about Croatian band`s albums and Singapore`s singers albums, those are way less notable, and don`t get deleted. I`m sorry to get emotional, but in my country El Tri is like Bob Dylan or Guess Who, omnipresent and eternal. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources don't have to be in English. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Keeping reasons http://www.rumormusical.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=2007&z=29 Here is a reference to the international fame of the band, specifically in Argentina. http://music.batanga.com/en/articles/2006/eltri021706.asp and an interview from Batanga.com with Alex Lora, he is the main man of the band, and his accomplishments are of the band. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Nominator - see WP:JNN and WP:BEFORE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article could use some more references but that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elia Pirone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Lacking notability. The subject is a prolific blogger who apparently applied much effort to establish his presence on Google and wikipedia. All refs of the articles link to sporadic articles in Italian newspapers, many are minor. An important note is that his article was deleted from Italian wiki where it should be in the first place. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete page has just been created as userpage on it.wiki and it has already been deleted on fr.wiki, please note that all occurrences has been added by the subject himself (151.16.72.0/21, User:Prof0, User:Profet111, User:Ennio Annio and User:Cofftime2). --Vituzzu (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As mentioned above, this is clearly lacking notability and is an obvious attempt at self-promotion (the 151.16.72.0.21 IP address is located in Bologna, where the subject lives). --Angelikfire (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs, data as the source IP should not be disseminated publicly. I will consider the idea of denouncing the author of the comment above. --151.16.75.40 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your ip is a known data since you push save button, accepting wiki's Terms Of Service, furthermore RIPE's ip database is publicly downloadable since it doesn't contain any sensitive data. Defamation is not a big deal but I'm quite sure you know it, so that's just an attempt to legally threat people who's fighting against your continuos spam. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with redirect to Chelsea_Clinton#Engagement_and_marriage. The topic is notable owing to coverage which stems from the notability of a spouse, Chelsea Clinton. Any notable, sourced content carried by this article is already covered in that BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mezvinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The previous AfD's decision to redirect to Chelsea Clinton was overturned apparently without consensus on 30 July, and he still isn't independently notable, other than being the husband of Chelsea Clinton and the children of two somewhat notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. He seems like a run-of-the-mill investment banker, no offense intended. —fetch·comms 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, what is in this article could be held in the Chelsea Clinton so redirect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete this fella has no notability whatsoever, if chelsea has notability (which i doubt) then he can go onto that article, dont think this warrants mention on Bill or Hillary's page. but at most it can go on chelsea's page, not ever worth a redirect. What is his claim to fame? Mr. Chelsea? he works for goldman and/or interned at a political party...why not list all the bankers/interns with trust funds? Not to mention the edit summary [10]

ps- hes a yankee too? what happened to Billy? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

strong delete or redirect to "Chelsea Clinton". delete it it for now. there isn't any valuable and notable information personally about him. he is basically unknown person. if he accomplished something noteworthy or get some more attention without the help of clinton or his family. this should be deleted. is this only going to say "he is financier and husband of chelsea clinton." 174.16.177.120 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect. I agree with the comments made above. The only press is through Chelsea Clinton, who is herself a secondary figure, only notable through Bill Clinton, which makes the connection here even more tenuous. Also, the sourcing seems to fall solidly short of the notability guidelines. Although the politicsdaily source seems to be written directly about him in detail, I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Also, although that source isn't exactly a private blogger, it's not exactly a reliable news source either--it is even presented as "Political gossip", and that's the only source with much detail. But even reading that source, most of it just talks about the Clintons. If, a few years from now, he is still getting the same degree of coverage, and there is more material to construct an encyclopedic page, even if all the coverage is through association with Chelsea, I might reconsider. But this article as-is is unencyclopedic and cheapens wikipedia...there's only enough sourceable material for a paragraph or two, and breaking it into headings just makes this page look like a magnet for celebrity gossip. Cazort (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, He is only notable as the husband of Chelsea Clinton, and as the son of Ed Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. A brief mention of him in the articles on his wife and parents is sufficient. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain Adding it to another article will only make that article over-long. (This is a general point: Wikipedians should aim at a good batch of short interlinked articles with no redundancy)

Aa42john (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Chelsea CLinton is still short and the international publicity of her wedding shows shows her husband is notable. 213.122.203.99 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but give a brief mention on Chelsea's page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - Mentioned in media for over a decade, son of two former Congresspeople, husband of Chelsea Clinton, son-in-law of a former President. Notable. Mentioned in media. People want information about him. Amechad (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) amechad[reply]
  • Strong delete - Known for nothing except linked to other people who are notable. And notability isn't inherited. Otherwise I should get an article since I am related to a famous actor. (BTW, responding to the above person - "mentioned in media for over a decade". So what? "Mentioned in media". You said that once. "Notable". For? Many people get mentioned in the media many times, including very well known child abusers (look, Vanessa George is redlinked), murderers, villains etc... however they don't all have articles) 82.152.201.3 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chelsea Clinton. Notability isn't inherited, and this guy isn't notable if he had married Jane Smith. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• retain - Previously mentioned in the media, the son of notables, and husband of Chelsea Clinton. Son-in-law of former president is notable. Amechad (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these arguments are based on inherited notability. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unless notability is established other then being a husband and son-in-law of Clintons. --- A. L. M. 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is not inherited, even with that many notable relatives. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he is one half of the two person duo being billed in numerous sources as the Wedding of the Century. What benefit would there be to keeping information about him in the Chelsea Clinton article? A redirect to that article would just result in the reader having to pick out the material about him from that article. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chelsea Clinton article, personal life section, is tiny, and mostly comprises of information of this guy. Redirecting to Chelsea Clinton#Personal life is the right thing to do. — Timneu22 · talk 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you evaluate what is the (anything) of the century when the century is only 10% completed. We do not know what will happen in the future. Media hype about something does not make it important or give it encyclopedic value. The wedding of a former president's offspring in it's self is not even noteworthy enough to have an article of it's own. Chealsea Clinton is only slightly noteworthy due to her relationship to her Father/Mother, and imho should be a small section in the Bill Clinton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.228.111 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone's most notable accomplishment is to be married to someone extremely famous and important I believe established Wikipedia consensus is to consider them not notable. When the person they are married to is themselves only famous being the offspring of someone extremely famous and important then the first person really doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. __meco (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Currently, he's notable for one event, his wedding to Chelsea Clinton. We have some reliable sources for the event itself. This is the relevant policy, from WP:BLP1E:

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. ... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Clearly his role in the event is substantial. The question is how persistent coverage of the wedding is, or will be, in the media. Alternatively, we could create Chelsea Clinton's wedding, and merge this article into that. That subject is actually quite heavily sourced.

Also, I'm getting the impression that a lot of folks here don't really approve of the amount of coverage the wedding is getting in the mainstream media. That is a kind of bias: we should instead strive to represent the reliable sources fairly and proportionally, regardless of whether we find the topic "serious" or "frivolous". —Ashley Y 06:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notwithstanding his lineage from two former congressional members and his recent wedding to a former first daughter, Mr. Mezvinsky is just not notable enough in his own right to warrant a page. That said, he should live and be well all his days.Alan (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is clearly notable in that he is now the topic of significant independent coverage from many of the most prominent publications around the world. He will likely remain notable given his attachment to Clinton. When we keep articles about minor reality TV personalities this would seem to be a clear keep even as a "TV personality". |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage is from recent news on his marriage see WP:ONEEVENT. We're here to decide if he's notable now, not in the future. —fetch·comms 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is not inherited or established. This individual is not notable for anything other than the company he keeps. While he should be mentioned in the Chelsea Clinton article, he simply does not warrant an article of his own. No reflection on the individual, he simply hasn't yet established notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability has been established by significant media coverage (see WP:NOTABLE). I see 6926 news articles on him when I put his name into Google. He's also the son of two former members of Congress. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be, but only because he married a celebrity. There is not enough to say about Mezvinsky: He's the son of ..., he attended Stanford U., he's an investment banker, and he married Chelsea Clinton. This warrants a stand alone article? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the news articles are about him, that's actually sufficient. If the news articles are really about the wedding, that may be sufficient for an article about the wedding. —Ashley Y 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's just not notable, no matter who he's related and/or married to. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rethink the formulation, because it's the section title in WP:ITSNOTABLE :) Hekerui (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but otherwise the notable event in question, the Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding, or however the style-guide suggests, probably needs its own article. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the wedding an article on its own when it can be merge into chelsea's page (and mentioned on the bill/hillary's page) That should be deleted too.(Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
  • Even if that new article is valid (not so sure), there still is no reason for a separate Marc Mezvinsky article. The wedding article could have a "background" section that sufficiently covers the groom and bride, with a ((main)) template to redirect Chelsea's info to her page. I still see no reason why Marc Mezvinsky is a valid topic on its own. — Timneu22 · talk 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding is up for deletion. The article is almost an exact duplicate of the Personal life section of the Chelsea Clinton article. Marx Mezvinky and the wedding are where they belong - in the Chelsea Clinton aticle. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - known for one event and Chelsea Clinton's notability is not inherited by her husband. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If he ever does anything notable, then an article may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. (apart for his marriage - covered elsewhere) Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is only notable because of his marriage to a person who is only notable because of her parents. This one is a no-brainer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.158.197 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's simply not notable as an individual, deserves a couple of lines on the Chelsea Clinton article, --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article itself makes the case. It says exactly 3 things about the subject: he's one of 10 children of 2 notable people (notability not inherited), he's an investment banker (not notable per se), and he's Chelsea Clinton's husband (again, notability not inherited). Most of the article is actually devoted to his meeting, dating, and marrying Chelsea and should simply be pasted into her article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non-notable person; one sentence in the Chelsea Clinton article is about the extent this is worth Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• retain - final I've reviewed the opinions below and my decision it to retain. People have a right to know about his ultimate plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.196 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved this down from the top where it was inserted above the nomination. Hekerui (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitely a WP:BLP1E as he's done nothing of note besides marry Chelsea. Whether the information is worth merging somewhere is an editorial decision best made at the possible merge articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

118th Military Police Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) non-combat separate companies are not normally considered notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent: company-sized units in the US military have to demonstrate specific notability, this article does not. Also, completely unreferenced. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia common law. T3h 1337 b0y 03:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: an argument from precedent would appear to run counter to the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (or in this case, WP:Otherstuff like this got deleted.) Am I misunderstanding Wikipedia:Precedents here? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should clarify here. While the deletion debates mentioned/referenced above do constitute a precedent, I would also argue that this sub-unit is not notable, independently of the precedents. Does this make it more clear? Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not to say that "because A got deleted, B should too", it's more the case that "the rationale that got A deleted is the same rationale for B getting deleted". That's what a precedent is. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbolo Mpengi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:NN person failing WP:BIO. Unable to verify only reference. Promotional website for this person's cause has references the Wikipedia article to lend credibility. Note that the article was created by someone with a COI from the website. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per this search that only turns up the Wikipedia page. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at least for now. I can't see any permanence of notability here. This is merely being used as a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Actor has not achieved notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Cast as Mr. Spock, which sounds promising... but Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II is a fan-based series released only on the internet. The movie The Reapers is not yet released and his role in it is unclear. The rest of his career, according to imdb.com, looks to be an undistinguished series of bit parts. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ENT as per nom. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Moses (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article about a NN musician has already been speedied or prodded several times, as recently as April, as a glance at its creator's talk page will show. Only a single scanty source, and none backing up the creator's assertions of charting. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. I recommend that the article be deleted and salted, given the subject's persistence.  Ravenswing  01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt for reasons outlined above. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as it is impossible to verify his existence, outside of lists and unreliable sources, online by using several different searches. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal data compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD on a WP:OR article with long-standing major issues. The primary content is a proof which doesn't seem to be notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article seems to have 3 parts. The first "definition" is plausible, but unsourced (and probably not the primary use). The "theorem" appears in the proposed merge target, Lossless data compression#Limitations. The last sentence is commentary. And we have no source that the term is used. However, a google scholar search suggests the term is used, but often for any lossless encoding which compresses strings considered "likely". If there was something to be said about that, nothing here (other than a reference to Lossless data compression#Limitations, should be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The commentary by Bulat Ziganshin (talk · contribs) — who appears to be the Bulat Ziganshin who is the author of FreeArc (AfD discussion) — on the article's talk page is interesting, and bears out my own research. M. Ziganshin is right, this article appears to have developed from a misunderstanding compounded over the years. I've rewritten the article based upon some sources. I'm not sure whether there's enough in the sources to warrant a separate article. There appears to be some additional material in Ziv+Hershkovitz (cited in further reading) but I don't have full access in order to read it. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've created an entirely new article that's very much better. Your material might usefully go into Lossless data compression, though, since that article covers much the same territory. -- Radagast3 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The newly-added cited sources are legit and the definition contained in them is different from the one in the article, and constitutes a topic of legitimate research interest in the theory of data compression. I've updated the definition to make sense and the article should be good to go now. Dcoetzee 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are 1130 papers containing the phrase, so the topic is notable. The article as it stands now seems accurate too. The only issue is possible overlap with Lossless data compression#Limitations, Universal coding and Universal code (data compression). Shreevatsa (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know how often it's used for that concept. In addition to including "...universal. Data compression...", at least some of the papers use the term, but have a completely different meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that universal coding and universal codes are (counterintuitively) unrelated topics (except that both are related to data compression). Dcoetzee 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the literature "Universal data compression" seems to have several different meanings. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)2010 August 1[reply]

• Comment. This is no longer the article I nominated, but let me reiterate my delete recommendation for the article in its current form; the article is basically just an unsourced definition (it doesn't appear at all in the book reference #1). -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted because the discussion was not transcluded for a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete It is replication of LZ77 & LZ78 page as well as being incorrectly titled. The article is about Universal Data Compression Algorithm. This is clearly covered in detail at Data_compression_algorithm#See_also. It seems to me that it is a page created simply for having the cryptography cats added which could be added elsewhere. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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