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

The result was speedy Delete, WP:G12 by User:CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Al-Ziyarat[edit]

Kamil Al-Ziyarat (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 book, author doesn't have an article further indicating lack of notability Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quite hard to determine if it's notable or not. scope_creep (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a copycio from [1] -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 31 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 under criterion G3. This alternate table appears to be completely fabricated, i.e., a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1[edit]

Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1 (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 article of a season of Total Drama made up in User:Solinne64's imagination. Also see their user page now and before, [2]. There was a prod tag that was removed without an edit summary that reinstated the elimination table. Aspects (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. The article fails WP:N. JJ98 (talk) 01:49, 28 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. No delete rationale offered, no delete !votes at this time. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea[edit]

Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea (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)

Seriously. Stamps??? WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:IDL. The reason given by WikiCopter is unacceptable. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a much larger scheme that proposer could have seen if he had bothered to do a little checking. See the Philately Project for details. Maidonian (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WikiCopter, if you can't come up with valid reasons why an article should be put up for Afd, then your wasting our time and yours, so don't do it. The article is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seriously Stamps???, what sort of a reason for Afd is that? This is part of a much larger series of worldwide articles within the ambit of the Philately WikiProject. Please stop this time wasting. ww2censor (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy snow keep as there is no valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Forgive poor User:WikiCopter who doesn't understand this is one of hundreds of similarly-named philatelic articles. Ecphora (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Points for comic relief though - very few WP editors can claim to have only ever worked on "important" topics, and WikiCopter's edit history shows he's no better than the rest of us. :-) Stan (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Philatelic history, well done. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep You made a bad call, WikiCopter. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The reason given by WikiCopter is unacceptable. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a perfectly acceptable article (makes a refreshing change. . .) Mean as custard (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep! Non-admin closure.

Lieutenant Frank Drebin[edit]

Lieutenant Frank Drebin (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 contains mostly trivia and not enough encyclopedic information. Only lead contains valuable information, which could easily be moved to The Naked Gun. Character is not notable enough on its own for its own article, and should deleted or merged to The Naked Gun. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge into The Naked Gun. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. --Crunch (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator is arguing for merger not deletion. There is no single obvious merge target as this is the lead character in multiple movies and a TV series. "not enough" is not a reason to delete and there are plenty of sources out there if we want more. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden. A notable character. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Famous character, instantly recognisable. Clearly notable.scope_creep (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merging to The Naked Gun would be confusing, as the character also appeared in Police Squad. JulesH (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has independent, non-trivial RS mentions already in article. Merge would be confusing, per JulesH. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main character from major motion picture franchise-easy keep. Are they going to try to delete Luke Skywalker next? Zane Murphy (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep of a notable character of a notable franchise... who receives continued coverage in multiple reliable sources. With respects to the nominator, applicable guidelines fully support this article. Because yes, as there is no one place where it might be merged, and it is well sourced as a stand-alone article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. Mandsford 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format physics[edit]

Format 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)

Contested prod. Let us be kind and just call it "original research". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be WP:OR or possibly WP:HOAX violations. Can't anything about it. Nothing mentioned in Google Books. scope_creep (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR and WP:FRINGE seem to apply here. No reliable sources to indicate otherwise. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle Dick. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extraordinary claims need reliable sources; lots of the former, none of the latter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uh.... interesting stuff. If it had a few references (or even a single one) I might change my mind. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates WP:OR and WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 31 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. No clear consensus has emerged. I am closing it this, with no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Award[edit]

Micro Award (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 award lacking in significant coverage from independent 3rd party sources. --23 Benson (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The award is not notable. 10 references and the only one with any semblance of significant coverage about the actual award itself is the official website. Are the sources even reliable is another issue. Lionel (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flash fiction (no longer Delete). The merge is a win-win for both articles. Lionel (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence from reliable sources such as third-party media that the award is notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per reliable sources being used now as references. Several independent sources refer to the award and they are all in agreement. Award is notable. Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What about a Merge to Flash fiction? Lionel (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmgh. Do you mean a section for Micro Award on Flash fiction? That might not be a bad idea. I'll think about it. HeartSWild (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know that you don't own the articles, right? --23 Benson (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't aware I was claiming ownership of any article. To be clear: I'm not. What happened to good faith? HeartSWild (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP refs are by people and organizations respected in literature and are within wiki's criteria for reliable sources. this is an easy decision to keep.Cartersfriendly (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) — Cartersfriendly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep All 12 refs are reliable sources according to WP:RS. There is significant coverage about the subject from four of them. Therefore, the subject exceeds required notability criteria and should have its own wikipedia article.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone will unquestionably cast doubt on the validity of this reference. It easily falls within the criteria for a reliable source per WP:SPS. If you don't think Jason Sanford is a valid source for writing and short fiction, then please read WP:RS. HeartSWild (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Lionelt. We could merge to it Flash fiction. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the above is Merge to Flash fiction Lionel (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: many of the references appear to be rehashes of what sound like press releases about the award, such as one that indicates submissions are open without any sort of commentary ([3])... it shows the award exists, but not how it is notable, and that appears to be a problem for many of the used sources. Also, one appears to be a blog-style post ([4]). One of the sources mentions Laughlin, but doesn't even mention the award, so I fail to see how that can be used ([5]). I'd be willing to alter my recommendation only if reliable sources that are actually reliable can be found. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point with your ref 3. It's removed. You second ref was the was one I was referring to above. HeartSWild (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think micro award is notable with the significant coverage referenced in the article. They all seem to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Beastwarts (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would welcome some elaboration about what you consider "significant coverage" given my concerns in the comment above. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the referenced articles only give overviews or the basics. But a few talk about the history of micro award and go into some detail. I see at least 4 that would qualify as significant coverage according to wikipedia guidelines. Also as I said before all of the references used now (all 12) meet the reliable source guidelines. Beastwarts (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though I think it already meets notability criteria, I would still like to see a few more refs with some detail. The article is fairly light and could use some significant improvement JakobBorliner22 (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC) — JakobBorliner22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Interesting debate. I agree that the references used fit within reliable source guidelines and that this is a notable entry. However, I also agree with Jakob that the article needs to be fleshed out. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources establish that the award exists. But the award itself is not very significant, and notability is not established by the mentions in or references to the award in the provided sources. Let us remind ourselves: blogs may be reliable, but their weight does not compare to that of printed media. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I closed this as delete my mistake thinking this was on the list to be closed today. I have put it back up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources provided are not reliable sources or are primary. This hasn'r established notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All 11 references currently used meet WP:RS standards. The one that has been questioned is a writing and story blog by Jason Sanford. A blog by this individual on this topic easily falls within WP:SPS standards. The one primary source is used to verify the winners of the award, not for notability. The remaining 10 reliable sources make this entry notable. HeartSWild (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Merge (see below). HeartSWild (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Analysis of all sources provided: As indicated before, these sources seem to indicate the existence of the award, but do not establish notability. [6] merely lists its nominees for this award. [7] appears to be a press release (and is redundantly listed twice in the list of references). [8] is about another contest, and the only connection to this award happens to be that one of the judges is the administrator of the Micro Award. [9] mentions the award in passing (basically stating "x won it"); it is not the primary topic of the article nor am I convinced it meets WP:RS. [10] is a primary source. [11] and [12] are scant biographies of Laughlin and barely mention the award, and likewise the only connection [13] has to this article is a mention of Laughlin in the context of some other contest. [14] is a listing of awards, only a cursory mention. [15] is a blog. [16] is a dead link. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good points, Kinu. This entry might be notable sometime in the future but it doesn't have the meat now. Change my keep to delete.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have any of you read Flash fiction? It's a tiny little article dying for a little content. This article is a perfect merge candidate. What do you think?Lionel (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've got a point. It's a good compromise given we have a 5-5 keep-delete debate right now. This would give Flash fiction and Micro Award a chance to grow. I just don't want to be the one to do it! HeartSWild (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flash fiction. This is a change from my keep vote. I disagree with some of Kinu's assertions above. I see three reliable sources currently being used for notability (1, 7, 13). I think the other notable source I previously identified is the now broken link. #1 is not a press release and #7 and #13 are clearly reliable sources per WP:RS. The rest of the references are also reliable, just not sources of notability. HeartSWild (talk) 17:35, 3 September 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. There are strong arguments put forward that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines, and those arguments have clear consensus support. Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manmadhan Ambu[edit]

Manmadhan Ambu (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 May I prodded this article about “a forthcoming film” citing WP:Crystal, but it was de-prodded with the reason “refs say filming began in April 2010. per WP:NFF it is enough to keep the article, as this is a notable film starring notable actors”. It is now the end of August and the film has still not yet been released. It is not notable as an unreleased film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Quable (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails [[WP:NFILM|notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete : The filming began on April 2010 and it is set for a November 2010 release on the occasion of Diwali.The following references say that 90%of the movie is over and the post production work of the movie has started. ^[1][2] Valli Narayanan 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:NFF. It is a notable film which is still filming and the filming itself is getting continuous coverage. The scheduled release date is first week of November 2010]. What we have here is a notable film with notable actors and notable director for which production work has began and the filming itself is being covered continuously in the media. enought to satisfy WP:NFF--Sodabottle (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep with respects to the good faith of the nominator. Meeting WP:NFF is meeting WP:NFF. There is no demand that a project IN principle filming must be released immediately. Users Valli Narayanan and Sodabottle have shown it meeting both WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Consideration toward WP:BEFORE would have encouraged looking beyond current state to the sources available for improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article easily meets WP:NFF. There's no requirement that the film be completed or released to be notable. It should not have been nominated IMO. Zane Murphy (talk) 09:37, 1 September 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. This is a question of "It's below 5.0, so not notable" vs "It's unusually high for the general location". Clear consensus was not found, so I am closing it thus - but without prejudice against a speedy renomination, should that be considered desireable -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 County Clare earthquake[edit]

2010 County Clare earthquake (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)

Now that the fervor is over I'll relist this debate. No casualties. Rest of article full of trivia. We normally don't even list them on 2010 earthquakes if they are below a 5.0 Marcus Qwertyus 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This event may be a little unusual for Ireland but it falls well below the suggested guidelines for notability at WikiProject Earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This seems to me a inclusionism vs. deletionism question. Some people may find it notable that this was the first earthquake recorded in this region. Personally, I wouldn't mind keeping it, but I abstain. Nageh (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also see 2002 Dudley earthquake. Scale 4.7, no injuries, still article on it. Nageh (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've not looked at the project notability requirements before (which it fails all of), but it seems entirely non-notable – there are 1000 earthquakes of this magnitude every day, and it's not clear why this one is interesting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you then also AfD the other article I mentioned above? (And probably more... Just curious here.) Nageh (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, as I've had no reason to look at that article (I do nominate articles, but only after coming across an article for some other reason). I'm sure someone will get round to it if it needs nominating. As far as this article is concerned that is covered by WP:WAX, and this discussion is about this article only.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable event. Articles of similar earthquakes haven't been deleted so neither should this one. However, better sourcing would be appreciated. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not again. I tolled you way I left this on in the frist place. I have family in that part of Ireland and they tolled me the night which the quake struck that they felt it. This is a big event in Ireland's geography. Yes earthquakes of this magnitude happen over 1000 times a day in the world were there is fault line but not in Ireland and a spicily in County Clare were there is little known about earthquakes in that part of Ireland. I like and I say it again to keep it on here as a record of this event and if in the near further a bigger earthquake mint happen in Ireland may in that area. I now in the past were a small quake has happaned and some 50 to 100 years later in the same a bigger earthquake struck. Is could be the case in County Clare earthquake. But then again it could be an known fault which I would a I on. Ryan Kirkpatrick talk) 16:46, 29 August 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.133.123 (talk)

Very weak keep after reading this which states "The tremor was 10 times more powerful than the one which hit Co Donegal earlier this year" which was also unusual. Plus a representative from the School of Cosmic Physics calling it "very important", "there is no record in any historical archive of a tremor or earthquake before", "This event forces us to reevaluate the west of Ireland's geology", etc. due to broken records, never having happened before, etc. The "project notability requirements" link mentioned above took me to a talk page/user page which seems to facilitate "common sense" but even so does state "Unusually large events in areas of low seismicity - the 'largest earthquake since 1992' doesn't make it notable but the 'largest event since records began' probably does, as long as the area is large enough (i.e. countries rather than counties)". And the West of Ireland is not a county - it is many of them. "Large enough" is open to interpretation depending on your position in the world/universe. --candle•wicke 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The weakness of Irish earthquakes is itself notable. Some hi-tech chipmaking by laser plants are here because of the stablility of the soil (if nothing else!). Besides not much ever happens in Clare now that matchmaking is dying out.Red Hurley (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well below notability guidelines for Earthquakes. It seems that nobody would have known about it but for sophisticated measuring equipment. 0 deaths, no injuries, no damage, a few people woke up when they heard a loud bang then went back to sleep; now that's not notable! Snappy (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although only 2.7 magnitude, this quake is notable for being the first ever recorded seismic activity of any kind in the area. It caused quite a stir with the locals. Earthquakes like this happen every single day in some parts of the world, but in Ireland they are extremely rare. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is the poster child for the recent proliferation of worthless articles about trivial earthquakes. No way is this worth an article. Such minor quakes happen all the time, all over the world; this one was probably not even felt except by instruments. Question for those who claim that minor earthquakes are notable if they occur someplace that doesn't get many earthquakes: Thunderstorms are unusual here in San Diego where I live. They almost always make the news when they happen, and everybody talks about them for days. In other parts of the country, thunderstorms are an everyday occurrence. Would a San Diego thunderstorm be worthy of a Wikipedia article, on account of its rarity and news coverage? That's pretty much the argument that people make when they say "well, yes, it was a minor earthquake, but it was unusual for the area." For that matter, it snowed here once, back in the 1940s - up to an inch in places. That inch of snow would certainly be worth an article, 1948 San Diego snowstorm [17], under the standards that are being proposed here for earthquakes. How about it, shall I write the article 1948 San Diego snowstorm? --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And before you all get too excited about "the largest earthquake ever recorded!", "first ever recorded in the area!", etc., please note that records have only been kept since 1978. So the correct description is "largest earthquake in more than 30 years."--MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A notable event. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note WP:ITSNOTABLE. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of relevance here is WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS which require news events of this kind to receive coverage and impact for inclusion. Even if the coverage exists, the impact here certainly doesn't. In fact, the event is known only for it's low impact. It therefore fails the relevant inclusion standards.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the unusual geographical location, which makes it significant. BTW, an article on the San Diego snowstorm of even one inch would be notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with Mkativerata. My search doesn't show any later coverage. In fact, it seems to be more of an earth tremor. A non-notable event, that has received no coverage since it happened. I would point out the Wikiproject's criteria don't seem applicable when they're stuck on the talk page and debated. Bigger digger (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out I try to come to these as a keeper, I don't like deleting editors' hard work, but there just isn't the in-depth coverage in reliable sources I need to find to support that position. The keeps suggest that it was a big deal in parts of Ireland, but then where is the material to support that? At the moment there are just assertions. Bigger digger (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA art[edit]

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

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable art form. The references do not establish notability as they all deal with the collection and processing of DNA generally and not with the art form itself. Fails the general notability guideline. Also rather spammy with a helping of WP:NOTHOWTO. ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom. I very nearly PRODed it myserlf because I couldn't find a suitable CSD criterion for it. It's more about obtaining and processing DNA samples. The source that is provided is not reliable within the ;eaning of WP:RS --Kudpung (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the article merely rehashes the PCR and electrophoresis process without any WP:RS indicating why DNA art itself is notable. Likely WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DNA has provided the basis for some artworks, such as Marc Quinn's portrait of Sir John Sulston. But that work wasn't about the visualisation of the DNA, more the actual DNA. An article with this title might exist in the future, but this ain't it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reliable sources aren't used. Zane Murphy (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira[edit]

Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira (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 player never played in Brazilian National League Serie B and Serie C (2005, 2007 & 08) season, thus a non-notable player. In 2005 season the first choice is Adriano (all 8 matches) In 2007 the keepers were Raniere (30 out of 32), Aloísio (2 out of 32). In 2008 is Paulo Musse (30 out of 38), Raniere (8 out of 38). I have checked every match reports of these seasons. The North America leagues were not notable. Matthew_hk tc 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:40, 31 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 as a direct overlap of TV Parental Guidelines. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel TV Ratings[edit]

Channel TV Ratings (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 really notable WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A10 as redundant to TV Parental Guidelines with about one percent of the information. So tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:20, 27 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 as G1 NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

తెలుగు డైలాగ్స్[edit]

తెలుగు డైలాగ్స్ (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)

nonsense Lhmn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdia village[edit]

Abdia village (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)

orphan article, only claimed source is dead link, so bad it not help writing proper article Lhmn (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The place exists: It's visible (labeled "Abdeya" in Google Maps) at 36°03′54″N 54°23′14″E / 36.0649°N 54.3871°E / 36.0649; 54.3871. We have articles about settlements this small—and smaller—in many other countries, although I'm not finding anything substantive online about this village. A search in Farsi might turn up something. Obviously, the article needs to be renamed and cleaned of unverifiable OR if it's kept. Deor (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Abdeya" (I just moved the article to this name) is an actual village [18]. Towns/villages are notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Oakshade. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tried to find it last night on Google Earth, wrong name I guess. It is a small village and notable. scope_creep (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 36°3′53″N 54°23′13″E / 36.06472°N 54.38694°E / 36.06472; 54.38694. Google Earth knows it as Abdeya, ورکیان, Iran -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason Derülo (album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Love[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSONG; there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Guoguo12--Talk--  18:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jason Derülo (album) per WP:NSONG, there is no enough information for an article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Armbrust and WP:NSONG. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per Armbrust. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond B. Kemp[edit]

Raymond B. Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I think this academic fails notability. He is not a tenured faculty member at Georgetown (http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/kempr/), but a research fellow (http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/fellows.html). I come up with only 13 Google Scholar hits. This seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The Google News archive hits do not indicate significant coverage to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, though they do confirm he was a District of Columbia school board member for a few years in the 1970s. Absent coverage, though, that doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Novaseminary (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nominator justifies well.--Caravan train (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable in any of the roles described in the article: academic, researcher, priest or community organizer. --Crunch (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, seems notable, but needs more information and sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's precisely the problem, though. Anything (or anyone) would meet WP:N if there were enough reliable sources discussing it in detail. By saying that this individual fails to meet the various Wikipedia notability guidelines, we are not saying he is not worthy of note, or not important, or not valuable. Rather, just that the coverage, etc., does not yet justify an article. Novaseminary (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails to demonstate notability. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 2 September 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. Mandsford 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)[edit]

Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet notability guideline. Notability for buildings seems to indicate NRHP listing as the criterion for notability; see List of Masonic buildings for more on this. There are issues there, but the basis of that list is NRHP listing. The article here clearly states the building is not on the NRHP because the oweners did not wish it on there. It is not a unique building either in style or period of construction, and simply being "architecturally interesting" is too vague when it fails the major criterion for notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was hoping MSJ would participate in a notability discussion first at the Talk page of the article, rather than bringing this to AFD, but i rather expected it to come here. The AFD nomination is confused. I believe MSJ feels on the one hand that NRHP listing does not convey notability for a building; here he argues lack of NRHP listing status proves non-notability. That is silly; there are many buildings that are not NRHP-listed, including, in the United States, many historically important ones such as the White House, the Supreme Court building, and, well, many others. I believe in AFD nominations there is some requirement or suggested guideline for nominators to look for sources, first. Has that been done?

About the place, I have visited it and took photos a while back, which I'll look for and upload within a few days. I recall that, while it is not huge, it is a monumental kind of building that stands out as unusual in Pasadena, and that its Art Deco / zig-zag moderne styling is notable. --doncram (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A few moments googling finds this. And i found wp:BEFORE which states requirements for an AFD nominator to follow, not followed. --doncram (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. The source found on google, pasadenascottishrite.org, doesn't demonstrate any coverage independent of the subject. NHRP explicitly declined the application. "Interesting" is a subjective opinion of the author of the wikipedia article. The citing of BEFORE is also misleading. That's not policy, nor a requirement, whether or not the non-policy is "adhered to."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the NRHP accepted the listing and judged the place notable; hence the finding that the place was NRHP-eligible. It's a technical matter that the building's owner, the Scottish Rite of Pasadena, apparently, chose to decline to allow the listing. Pasadena is a city with a very active historic preservation community, and NRHP listing would likely bring the building within local building/historic preservation restrictions, as happens in a number of other jurisdictions, so an owner decision not to allow listing sometimes happens.

Whatever you say about WP:BEFORE, which is displayed on the AFD main page. Call them "guidelines" or "suggested requirements" that the nominator ignored then. I just pointed to the very first hit in googling on "Scottish Rite Pasadena". I expect there are some other google-accessible sources, and many offline sources, regarding this place. I don't see how you can possibly come to a judgment that there is no independent coverage of the place, already.

About more sources, it should be possible to get a copy of an NRHP nomination form for the place, which is generally regarded as a reliable secondary source, even though the NRHP listing did not go through. There is a date and an NRHP reference number available. I'll put in a request for that, but it usually takes a while to receive those from the U.S. National Register in Washington, D.C., when the documents are not available on-line (as for California). Because I am somewhat interested in developing the article. The AFD should be rejected outright, IMHO, but you are obviously free to disagree. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to allow for the construction of an actual encyclopedia article on a building of established (rather than supposed or imagined or "expected") notability, let us know. This article should have never been created in the absence of appropriate sources. You haven't found any -- and neither has anyone else. If there's some clearly idiotic guideline that says everything on the NRHP is de facto notable, that's a pity -- but it still wouldn't trump the GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bali ultimate.--Caravan train (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three sources listed on the bottom of the page originally linked that you didn't like. Just because you cannot immediately access them doesn't make them invalid sources. As far as NRHP nominations, have you ever looked at one? They are generally long, well-written documents justifying why and how the place meets federal standards of notability. The documents include historic context, reasons for notability and a detailed bibliography of sources, among other things. It is for these reasons that throughout years of having them judged as sources that places that have passed such scrutiny and are known to have such sources available have come to be accepted as notable. I'm sure you might win a delete on any given one or many, and force there to be no coverage of the subject until someone with enough time or interest requests the document, or until it becomes available online. I am equally sure that when the document was received or available online, the article would be re-added. Given the reliability of the known to be availabile documents, I cannot see what good is done to the encyclopedia to exclude all coverage of those places until such time as someone has the time to request the document for each of the 80,000 places. We have the list itself, which as a source tells us that the federal government has reviewed the information and found the place to be notable. The criteria are available online. The database was, and will be available online. We know that this place would have been listed but for the whim of the owner. So, be arbitrary and delete it if you want to. But don't try to convince me that it's in order to protect the encyclopedia or to keep out coverage of something inappropriate. You may think the reasons for our believing that anything listed on the NRHP is notable are "idiotic", but I think it's idiotic to dismiss them without even asking upon what they were founded. Lvklock (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NRHP nomination docs, web sources in the article and Los Angeles Times newspaper coverage, including this series from Feb. 16-18, 1925 when the cathedral was dedicated: CATHEDRAL TO BE DEDICATED: Services Will be Conducted in Pasadena Tomorrow New Scottish Rite Building Beautiful Edifice National Officers Are Here for Ceremonies TO DEDICATE CATHEDRAL: Everything in Readiness for Scottish Rite Ceremony at Pasadena This Evening SCOTTISH RITE HAS DEDICATION: Elaborate Ceremonies Take Place at Cathedral Several Hundred Masons of High Degree Present Further Programs Planned at Crown City Edifice. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Additionally, the Scottish Rite Cathedral has an entry in An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be fair number of primary and secondary sources to establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its inclusion on this list: National Register of Historic Places should be sufficient to establish notability. --Crunch (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified the above editor that his vote rationale is directly contradictory to the basis of the AfD and facts established in the article. NHRP.com is not considered to meet RS. - MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Historic Pasadena building that easily passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by AbbyKelleyite. Even eligible for the NHRP.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Abby Kelleyite and Oakshade.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm not intending on voting in this. Given that this building is not listed it doesn't pass the NRHP project notability position, however if one takes a fairly generous position on the meaning of non trivial and independent of the subject then there are likely to be sufficient sources to meet the needs of the General Notability Guideline. Personally I'd say that rather abuses the notion of notability, but the majority of votes do tend to take a fairly lax position around evidence. There are a number of aspects of this article, as with many of the similar stub articles, that would benefit from clarification around meaning and accuracy. The use of the NRHP forms as a source does leave me considering our position on Primary and Secondary sources, the form looks like a primary source to me.

ALR (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lvklock, Abby Kelleyite, Oakshade, and Arxiloxos. The fact that the owner declined listing on the NRHP does not negate its eligibility for such listing. Notable buildings in the US don't have to be listed on the NRHP. clariosophic (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The sources which have been found so far demonstrate notability. In this specific case the site's non-inclusion on the NRHP speaks more toward its notability than against it, since it was historic enough to be listed before the owner objected. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - listing on a registry is evidence of notability, but not being listed is not evidence of non-notability. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shibley Rahman[edit]

Shibley Rahman (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)

COI article for a non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance and with a single BBC GNEWS (missing from the article) that outlines alleged stalking of an actress [19]. The article reads like a CV and appears to fail notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC or otherwise, article reads like a résumé, and discussion on the talk page of the article and of the primary author indicates conflict of interest. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been cleaned up and more sources added. While a primary author of the article apparently knows Dr. Rahman, it is well sourced enough to be considered as a genuine article and, in my opinion, should be kept. sxebill (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate as to which of the notability guidelines for individuals he meets? From what I can tell, the addition merely provides some abstracts, summaries, etc., of the articles he has written, without actually elaborating on the notability aspect of the subject as an individual. Is there any information out that other than the primary source journal articles, such as third-party sources which explain why his research is any more important and encyclopedic than that of any other academic? 30+ of the 37 cited sources appear to be citations of his own work, or work which is related to his, neither of which establish notability, per se. Mere information about the research is a CV, but commentary from other sources would make it an article. That's the real issue here. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the article has few or no reliable sources that are actually about its subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject/author requests deletion, and failure to pass WP:PROF.

I have noted all the comments above, and really I have to say, having carefully read the comments, that If it does not fulfill the criteria for a biography of any sort, I'd be very happy for you to pull it altogether. A clear consensus is emerging that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia and I have a genuine sense of guilt for wasting all your valuable time. Please note, however, that I am trying to edit the article, but as you know it's pretty pointless doing it about an article writh you or your work as the subject.

Indeed my closest friends have advised me that impartiality is a critical thing, and that autobiographies are virtually impossible to write. It might therefore be sensible for me to consider how I might contribute to the brilliant Wiki elsewhere? Please note that since the publication of these comments I have referred to a main incident of my life, which does need make my history notable, but the fact that I am well respected in the field of dementia research (and in fact quoted by more than half of the reference list, other laboratories who have discussed my research in their independent papers) so much so that my paper is currently in chapter 24.2.2 of the Oxford Textbook of Medicine (OUP), is a source of pride for me. And I have been awarded membership of the Society of Biology, and Fellowship of the Royal Society for Encouragement in the Arts, Commerce and Entrepreneurship, which is indeed another one of your criteria. I have done for a long time unpaid expert academic work in a medical charity (as shown on my linkedin profile), and I was awarded an academic scholarship at Westminster and Cambridge (the second, whilst not national as such, is the 4th top university in the world currently according to "The Economist".

Having said all that, if my article is patently unsuitable despite the re-writes, I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise, as you know the rules far better than me! So I do apologse for any upset caused; Ihave found writing this, yes effectively, autobiography emotionally demanding for obvious reasons, given that I am disabled and do not apply for any regular jobs. I therefore am very unlikely to meet your notifiability guidelines for decades to come, which greatly saddens me. However, I have rewritten the article many times, and it still reads like an autobiography, I feel. Of course, an easy way around this would be to get people who are experts in frontal dementia or Parkinson's disease to evaluate critically what I've written, as it's arguably fair that the Wiki piece should be subject to genuine peer review, as well as editorial moderation. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just actually tackled one of Kinu's original criticisms of many moons ago. I've got rid of any gratuitous references by myself which are irrelevant to the main article (such as my reviews of frontal lobe function in book chapters), because they did inadvertently look like a CV. I hope that this has improved the quality of the article, even though I know you're going to axe it unless something drastic happens. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Individually, this person is not notable enough for a article. His work on scientific topics could perhaps we referenced on the pages relevant to those topics, but a biography page is not the place to discuss such topics. Fellowship of the RSA is totally not notable: that's available for purchase. There are over 80,000 members of the Society of Biology. It's just not of encylopedic interest. --Duncan (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would be happy for it to be axed. I was only doing my best. I would like to put it somewhere in Wiki as the work is interesting. The article on frontotemporal dementia is too brief to put it there without looking out of place. In that case, I feel that I fundamentally agree with Duncan in that the work is fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia such as Wiki. I am very grateful for your comments though, and I hope that the word 'delete' is no reflection of the fact my work is considered crap. Nobody very senior around the world would think that in frontotemporal dementia, not least the people I've quoted, many of which I meet on the professional circuit (it's real academia, not Wiki.)

Right, could you then delete it? I would like to some sort of biolography on AboutUs. Many thanks guys. I actually agree with you. By the way, confirm this is correct?

"You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death). ( source of policy quotation )

I assume that if you get rid of it off Wiki then I can publish my work (it is my own work) elsewhere which is after all what we both wish?

PS Your comment that being a FRSA is available for purchase is not on. I believe that your own Wiki page even explains the membership process for election. You have to meet certain criteria. Some officers of Wiki may not meet them indeed however much money they pay (this is not a personal criticism at all, please note). http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/the-fellowship Your description of the RSA is hugely insulting to members of it, I humbly submit. Thanks guys.

Best wishes - nothing personal - just delete it - I will still continue to adore Wikipedia. Articleman11 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked for help at BLPN, here.

I just want this to end!!!!!!!!!!!!! Articleman11 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 30 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. Fails verifiability, notability (under GNG and ATHLETE) j⚛e decker^talk 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ball (rugby union)[edit]

Chris Ball (rugby union) (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 is about a rugby union pl;ayer with no coverage in reliable sources to to establish notability. The article claims that he plays for Newport RFC and the Newport Gwent Dragons. However, he is not listed on the current squads: [20], [21]. Checking with WikiProject Rugby union, User:FruitMonkey offered the opinion that "With no first class games under his belt and no international caps, we must state at this time Chris Ball is not notable and should be deleted." Whpq (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nomination indicates that subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and without reliable sources, notability is not established. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI -> This is the quick discussion at the wikiproject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Request for assistance on article - Chris Ball (rugby union) -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No evidence is provided that he meets WP:ATHLETE, and I was unable to find any indication of notability in a quick Google News search. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS, and very little sourcing available. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxartist[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail the notability criteria due to a lack of significant impact than can be demonstrated in independent sources. Searching Google News reveals no articles, general searching shows mentions on internet guides (web and book based) but nothing to firmly demonstrate notability worthy of creating an encyclopaedic article and current references included are all back to the website. The article has had a six year grace period for reliable sources to be found and added. Fæ (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 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) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. That the article has been around since 2004 and still has no sources suggests there simply aren't any sources to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate NRG[edit]

Ultimate NRG (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)

Also included in this nomination:

• Ultimate NRG 2

Non-notable compilation albums. These albums are not original music by an artist, they are simply a collection of songs on one CD; a glorified mixtape. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^comment 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I've heard of these, and they're definitely not 'glorified mixtapes'. That said, they do need better sources. Esteffect (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that "I've heard of these" is a valid notability criterion. If better sources cannot be found, then the albums are, by definition, not notable. SnottyWong ^chat 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These are studio albums from the producer Alex K, the albums include his own work.Atkinsonhd (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The clubland albums from [AATW] have a huge following and are top selling dance genre compilation album some of these songs cannot be bought on CD accept for in this form as they never made it past White label statusAtkinsonhd (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEIT SnottyWong ^comment 19:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how that's relevant here, noting something is a "top selling dance genre compilation" isn't case of 'liking it' at all. Yes, it could be with a reference to that effect, but that's not a relevant policy to show in this case - He didn't say they're "good". I grew out of this type of dance music years ago, but I'd still say that they just meet the notability threshold. Esteffect (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 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) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources. Notability unasserted per WP:NALBUMS. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a compilation isn't a problem, compilations are often bestsellers and sometimes hugely influential (i.e. the "Now..." series). No evidence that's the case here though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basick Records[edit]

WIKIPEDIA, YOU SET OF TOTAL DOUCHE BAGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.118.43 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basick Records (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 record label. Significant number of references at first glance, but closer inspection shows that they're all either reprints of press releases, or are non-third party sources. Several of the references she added were automatically flagged as spam and removed by a bot. The majority of the bands they represent are red-linked, the few that do have articles appear to have very questionable notability. Fails the alternative criteria in WP:MUSIC, fails the general notability guideline. Author seems to have no edits outside Basick records and the bands they represent. 2 says you, says two 21:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 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) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Caravan train (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TechCentric[edit]

TechCentric (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)

Self made page about a video podcasting service, which talks about computer & internet related topics. I haven't found any reliable sources to indicate notability. Mattg82 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative optimization[edit]

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

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

I have reviewed Huang: Cooperative Optimization for Energy Minimization: A Case Study of Stereo Matching [22] and it basically looks equivalent or very similar to the well-known technique of dual decomposition. I am certainly not convinced that this topic should have its own Wikipedia article, as this terminology is not established in the field of optimization. Petter (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at Google Scholar results there are only 18 citations to Huang's main paper and they all seem to be by Huang himself.[23] Some other titles do mention "Cooperative optimization" but I'm not sure these refer to the same concept as Huang.--Salix (talk): 07:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article has several issues, the most serious is that it relies heavily on a single author for its sources. This is a relatively new subject so there don't seem to be any textbook references, though I did find several references in conference proceedings etc. This isn't enough to satisfy the GNG but articles have survived AfD's with less.--RDBury (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ray^Talk 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Base under siege[edit]

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

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

This article was already speedily deleted, apparently for lacking notability. The editor who created it originally reproduced the article, with no cites to support its notability. A Google search found nothing save a mention on the TV Tropes page hereWikiuserNI (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Stub article with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Might be worth including in an article describing stock plot devices. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle Dick; also, has no inward links from article space. Talk page says "It's not a hoax. People talk about 'base under siege' all the time." - but it's not a term I've heard of, so I, for one, don't talk about it "all the time". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I stated on the talk page of the article - while Bottle show is a term that has reached common usage this term has not. The TV tropes link provided by WikiuserNI only uses the more general term "Siege". It does not include "base under" anywhere that I could find. Thanks for doing the leg work on getting this going. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Leeds[edit]

Chinatown, Leeds (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 is no Chinatown in Leeds, yet we have an article here on Chinatown, Leeds. There are no sources, and this reads like pure WP:OR. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR violation. scope_creep (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:OR. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd keep it if there was evidence that there is an unofficial term in common use in Leeds, but the closest thing I could find was a letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post saying that there should be a Chinatown. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed the earlier YEP article saying that Chinatown plans were likely scuppered? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:OR. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Ram Sharma[edit]

Rati Ram Sharma (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)

Apparent autobiography containing some remarkable claims of groundbreaking physics discoveries made through, err, yoga and meditation. The subject similarly claims to have overturned core principles of chemistry and biology. Claims for homeopathy are demonstrably false. Subject has awarded himself things like the Albert Schweitzer prize. The sole source is a self-authored website with much of the same self-aggrandising fiction.

There's no evidence of notability other than these extraordinary and unfounded claims. It's difficult to believe a word of the article, and I cannot find a reliable source on the subject, so I think deletion is the best way forward. bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While there is such a person PHOTO AND BIO, this smacks of a fringe POV push. He seems to big dog in the world of homeopathy. This article's sourcing is miserable, but a quick Google search generated THIS: "Dr Rati Ram Sharma, who was nominated for the Nobel prize in medicine in 1996 and was honoured with the 1989 Albert Schweitzer prize, the Nobel of complementary medicines award, for his contribution to elucidating the science of homeopathy. The unassuming scholar, has an amazing body of intellectual discoveries to his credit, that range from solving the mystery behind working of Alpha and Theta waves in the brain, to challenging the basis of the theory of relativity and the Quantum Theory. Dr. Ram has put his profound scientific understanding of the homeopathic system of medicine to practice, for the benefit of suffering humanity.He asserts that the science of homeopathy has not come to fore because its practitioners have never attempted to articulate its scientific basis." Worthy of inclusion? No opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here is a mainstream source making similar claims to our article, but it is the only one that I can find. I would add that the statement that the subject, or anyone else, was nominated for a Nobel Prize is pretty meaningless, and unverifiable for anyone nominated in the last 50 years - see Nobel Prize#Nominations for the reasons why. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the greatest regret in view of such spectacular claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. Ray^Talk 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BLP with no reliable sources in article or visible on searching. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim that he got the Albert Schweitzer prize appears to be a flat lie, or at least I could find no confirmation on the web. Nothing else in the article appears to be any more believable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 2 September 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. Favonian (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas W. Clayton[edit]

Douglas W. Clayton (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 individual. Article contains only brief third party mentions (typically quotes), primarily related to his firm, Leopard Capital and is highly promotional in content. The creator of the article was also involved in the creation of a series of articles related to this firm including Kingdom Breweries (afd-deleted), Nautisco Seafood (afd-deleted), CamGSM (afd-no consensus). (See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep First, I hate these self-serving promo type biographies. But, the sources cited make me lean towards a keep (especially the NYT cite). He may not be the biggest and highest paid in his field (criminal investor class) but he appears to at least be on the stage. If this were deleted I don't think it would be missed. However, if it turns out that the original editor is involved in some commercial chicanery, I wouldn't hesitate to gut everything done under that aegis. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete. scope_creep's description of the self-promotional nature of the NYT cite (which I did weight somewhat and also wasn't aware that it was a section that one pays to have written) pushes me the other way. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The NYT interview is not about Clayton, his life and career. It is about investments in Cambodia and secondarly his firm. I think his firm is a clear keep but not every founder of a notable firm is notable himself. This is borrowed notability at best. I have not found a single profile of Clayton, news about his career or life. So what makes him notable? On top of that, the content of the article is clearly a big problem and this is just another link in an attempt to promote the firm. Why is that something we would want to permit? By the way - he runs a firm with 15 employees - while the firm is doing notable work, I struggle to understand the reluctance to delete |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I echo Quartermaster above. I hate the page but the subject seems to be a big enough fish in the financial world to merit inclusion. Link in fn 4 is dead, by the way. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you are basing your "big fish" assessment on. I am not sure when getting quoted is sufficient for notability. What makes him notable? All he did was start a firm three years ago - and before that worked at a bunch of other firms that are not notable. This is exactly who the notability standard is supposed to keep out. Really bizarre. Half of the references if you look are on the company website and are promotional puff pieces that reference Clayton only insofar as they are talking about the firm. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen, go ahead and nuke the article if you want to. I won't go running to anyone about how some great injustice took place. AfD's are not cut and dried (otherwise why ask for comments?) and these aren't votes. Y'all get my considered opinion offered up (lightly in this case) and can do with it what you will. I appreciate your passion in this, but I don't think this is a big enough deal to waste a lot of my time justifying the notability of this guy. My opinion, based on reading the article, based on a loose weighing of cited sources (weak sources? yes. But we've all seen MUCH weaker survive to this day), makes me lean towards a keep in this case. I think if I based my opinion/advice on what I personally liked or disliked (and I dislike this article) I would be giving my honest contributions to wikipedia short shrift. Carry on. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Quartermaster is my twin brother, separated at birth. Well put. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike the keep, I'm not married to this staying. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think he fails WP:BIO. I don't think being a VC and businessman makes you notable. The sources are mostly self generated from his website. The NY times page is a Special Report in the Global Business section, which means they were paid to write. It is advertising after all. There is concomitant article which describes the capital fund. It has a fairly extensive duplication of whats in this article. I think both should be removed. There are entirely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Burk[edit]

Jeannine Burk (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 is about a survivor of the holocaust. She gets mentioned and her story gets told but is she notable? Whpq (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This information belongs elsewhere (e.g., Holocaust museum oral histories and such) but is not inherently notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, and the text, tone, etc., of the article is such that it may be a WP:COPYVIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 speedy, does not assert notability. Strange Passerby (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC. The mention in the Times article is sourced by the subject's personal account on the Holocaustsurvivors.org website--Plad2 (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Brady[edit]

Raymond Brady (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 is about a musician that does not establish notability. What I did find about him established him as ex-boyfriend of Ashlee Simpson, and playing guitar for her. Whpq (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per nom. Strange Passerby (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have not found anything that would suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG. Deez Notes Inc doesn't seem to have a website.--Plad2 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 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 the whole shebang. Despite a few !votes from SPAs there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. No prejudice against renominating any of these articles individually. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Land, Five Nations[edit]

One Land, Five Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, and no page on IMDB and during a Google search no reliable source to demonstrate that the film is notable. The article is unsourced. Farhikht (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason as stated above:

End (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Bitter Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Noon of the 10th Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A City Surrounded by Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Textbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Studying in the Modern World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Homeless (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Culture and Scientific treasuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nations Cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Religious Toolmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The World Intellectuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Green Faces, Burnt Bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Man Called Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Falcon's Blood Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep. Some of these articles were previously put up for deletion and it was decided to keep them. It is hard to find references online because the Iranian government places a strong censorship on information about Iranian films and their content. Therefore Iranian film makers have a hard time exporting their films to the western world. As Pouya sh says, there are many references to this film in Iranian magazines. To delete this article would show inconsistency, and would help the Iranian government with their censorship, which would totally defeat the point of having a "free" encyclopedia. SuperCrab (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two reasons: 1. Some of these films such as A Man Called Brian clearly have references and have participated in international film festivals, but they have been listed with the unsourced films in one group. 2. These are mostly Iranian films, and in Iran the internet is not as widespread (certinly not back in 80s and 90s), so the many magazines and critics that have published articles on these films in Iran back in the 80s and 90s are not (yet) available on the internet to be given as sources. Wikipedia is also a source of information about notable topics that are in countries with little or slow internet access! Pouya sh (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Pouya sh on this. You have to be careful about removing a complete man's work from WP. Also, the fact that One Land, Five Nations isn't in IMDB isn't a concern. The reality is that the majority of the films made in the world aren't in IMDB. Its a very western centric database, that isn't updatated that quickly as regards foreign films. Only the most popular films make, not the most notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The reason of AfD is that there is no source for the article and it fails WP:NOTFILM, and by talking about IMDB I just wanted to say that even in this database you can't find the name of these films. You can't vote without applying on policies and guidelines, we are here to reach a consensus. Pouya sh clearly says that there is no English source for the articles on the net (even for Homeless (2006) which is in English?), ok, but is there any Persian source? or at least is there any reviews in a magazine like Iranian Film magazine? Or you mean that we have to keep the article without reason?Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Film magazine is the most popular film magazine in Iran, yet its own article on wikipedia is only one line in length! You see the problem? Iran is not as connected to the internet as we all wished. If the magazine is hardly online, it does not includes a database for all notable Iranian films! Pouya sh (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons stated above. --NSH001 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have struck The Bitter Dawn as the article has not been tagged. --NSH001 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tagged it.Farhikht (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Its often extremely hard to find online sources on Iranian films due to the cencorship laws in Iran. The Iranian government controls what gets published online regarding domestic films produced. Clarket89 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these films have been produced by IRIB, you mean the government censured its own products?!Farhikht (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarket89 is right, all films and artists in Iran HAVE to get permission from the government prior to starting work. Yet the government places restrictions on the films (regardless of who the producer is, whether IRIB or other) after their production to prevent their "export". Thats a well known fact.Pouya sh (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just to clarify, according to the Iranian constitution, all television and radio programs and channels are approved by IRIB. It has full censorship powers. That includes all singers, songwriters, film makers, producers, everyone! Therefore if the producer of some of these films is written as IRIB, that only means that the film is made by an Iranian in Iran, not that it is in anyway connected to the government nor that its political. So its not "the government's own products" as Farhikht says. A perfect example is The Circle (2000 film), a film approved by the Iranian government before production, but banned in Iran after production! The only reason why that film has online references is because it won the Golden Lion award in Italy. Pouya sh (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the comments above, also, I see that one of the articles had previously been tagged for deletion, and the result of that was a "Keep". UKAndyM (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as notable to Iran is easily notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Lack of readily available online sources... specially for films from a country without a strong internet infrastructure, does not mean that hardcopy sources do not exist. With even the little offered here by other editors, I have a reasonable presumption of notability. Guideline does not demand that all such sources be brought to the fore within the next few days... only that we editors have a reasonable presumption that they exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Misra Bhattacharjee[edit]

Krishna Misra Bhattacharjee (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 is about an author, poet, literary critic that does not establish notability. The article provides no sourcing. As the subject works in Bengali, there is a concern of WP:BIAS. However, the only sourcing I can dig up is the subject's web site. Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient establishment of notability in reliable third party sources. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability requirement. Strange Passerby (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've tried to check some of the "Achievements" listed on the website and have come up blank. There doesn't seem to be any major acclaim listed there in any case, so I think the subject would not meet WP:GNG even if we could find sources.--Plad2 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanidhya Bali[edit]

Sanidhya Bali (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 is about a youth politician that does not meet notability. The article describes various roles he has held in the youth wing of political organisations but having not held any political office, he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article also describes his relatives' accomplishments, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Coverage about him is minor. The most substantial item I could find was this. Whpq (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never having held office is a sure sign of non-notability for a politician article. Ridiculously padded, including a ludicrous list of hobbies (air rifle shooting!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not meet either wp:politician or GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:Politician or WP:GNG. I found two trivial mentions to show that he exists, but nothing to establish notability. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per nom. Strange Passerby (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article, nor in the few bits of coverage I could find would indicate that he meets WP:GNG.--Plad2 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privately held companies of Cambodia[edit]

Privately held companies of Cambodia (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 assembles a collection of non-notable and semi notable companies all owned by a single private equity firm Leopard Capital. Two of the companies in this article have already been deleted in separate AfDs. The user responsible for the article has already been cited for issues with WP:ADVERT, WP:COI and WP:SOCK (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In addition to the fact that this is just a hodgepodge article, three of the four subjects on this page were recently put through AfD. Two were deleted: Kingdom Breweries (afd) and Nautisco Seafood (afd). A third article was kept under "no consensus" CamGSM (afd). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be a bad-faith attempt at subverting AFD consensus by sneaking deleted material into another article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 1:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kahn (film industry)[edit]

Richard Kahn (film industry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:N Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources provided are about other people, and mention him in passing. And even if everything in the article is true and verified, it still doesn't add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Ferren[edit]

Zachary Ferren (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. Child actor, played a minor role in Blades of Glory. The article goes on stating all the prizes won by the movie, but Ferren was personally awarded none of these prizes. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If I remember that movie right, the young version of this character appeared in just one scene. IMDB credits put him 18th in credits order, after unnamed characters like mountie, PA announcer, and floor manager. And that's his one and only role to date. Not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors and he is only notable event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability per WP:ACTOR. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daxko[edit]

Daxko (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 article appears to fail WP:ORG guidance. There are no results in GNews and matches in GBooks appear to be tangential or as part of lists/directories of companies. Apart from possibly being a "worthy" organization, there is nothing in the current article to expect the company has made impact on the historical record or other significance in order to expect suitable sources to be found to demonstrate notability in the near future. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, advertising and typical: provides software as a service solutions and related services. Only claim of subminimal importance is inclusion on various trade related lists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Roberts (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

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

Prod disputed. No indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. PKT(alk) 13:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per nomination. Tech industry businessman; the article makes no claim to historical notability, and of course this raises living person issues as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little to establish notability for businessman. scope_creep (talk) 1:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete no sign of notablity. Google searches are complicated by confusion with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and (seemingly) with the guy who set up Woodstock. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 29 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, though if I had my druthers I'd have first sent this to WP:PNT. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xilinx ISE[edit]

Xilinx ISE (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. Software with no assertion of notability. Google News only returns press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep because the software is a vital component to develop with FPGA on Linux. Other alternatives are simple very encumbered in comparision or simple don't have any free of use Linux offerings. Besides Xilinx was first with this kind of offer. And there is at least two Altera articles on the same software type that has been around for a very long time without challenges. "Xilinx ISE" gives 280 000 hits on Google, but Google is not the final answer to knowledge. Electron9 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Altera: any comment on those will not be taken into account. As I've already pointed out, just because there are cracks in the system is no reason to widen the cracks. We'll deal with Altera separately. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it just like Blanchardb says. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Interesting software, well suitable for WP. WP's validity as an encyclopedia would be less without articles like this. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting, perhaps. Suitable for WP, no, at least not until some notability is established. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very popular software, essential for developing with the most popular line of FPGAs. I used it in university. No, the page wasn't on my watchlist. It's hard to find a worthwhile reference in Google because the results are swamped with how-tos, academic course pages, vendors selling it, discussion threads about technical issues, etc. But there are a lot of hits, because a **lot** of people use it. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of great references found using GScholar and GBooks. Please stop using GNews to base your baseless assertions on. When looking for software (and not advertising) GScholar and GBooks are much better tools. (This also goes for Altera, BTW.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, I didn't notice that before. What does Blanchard expect Google News to return? Potatoswatter (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd be surprised ;-) Wired, for instance, is listed there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are implying that your methodology is not flawed on the basis that Google News indexes Wired, and Wired is a "technology" magazine, therefore Xilinx ISE, which is software, and thus technology, must also be covered, then your methodology is indeed flawed. Wired is Humanities meets technology—its scope is technology in culture and society. Xilinx ISE is electronic design automation software, it belongs in electronics engineering. Wired is also a general-audience publication. Xilinx ISE is software for professionals, and by that I don't mean that it us like Photoshop. I doubt that a one could do the simplest of things in Xilinx ISE without some background or experience in the relevant fields. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even just using Google as the final answer is quite limiting. There's Yahoo, Excite, and others. Other type of files like source codes etc. Then we have public libraries, research papers published before electronic publishing. News is also something that is new. Software that has been around for long isn't new, and thus is less likely to show up. The research method for this nomination seems flawed. Electron9 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nominator's research method is merely flawed? Nominations based on such a terribly methodology should be dismissed. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never noticed he used gnews either. That's a terrible way to look for reliable sources, particularly for software companies and their product, and more so for open source companies that often don't make the news. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The primary software used for developing designs for the most popular FPGAs on the market, and therefore one of the most important pieces of EDA software on the market. JulesH (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nominations like this one are disappointing. The nominator's argument that Xilinx ISE is not notable because there are no Google News results other than press releases suggests two things: feigned ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is or genuine ignorance of what Xilinx ISE is. Both are not desirable in a deletion debate. Understanding what one is nominating for deletion prevents poor-quality articles about notable topics from being deleted and it saves everyone a lot of time, both of which are beneficial for Wikipedia. I find the reliance on Google News to determine notability suspicious because it seems that the nominator is deliberately limiting the search to publications that are least likely to have coverage of this software. Is this a dodgy deletionist strategy or something more innocent? I would really like an explanation. By the way, I tried Google Books with "Xilinx ISE" as the search phrase and the first result I got was: Denton J. Dailey (2004), Programming Logic Fundamentals Using Xilinx ISE and CPLDs, Pretince Hall, 203 pages. I have not seen the book, but I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the book is an introduction to PLDs and using Xilinx ISE to design for them. I will look for more sources when I have the time. Rilak (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having not enough time to present multiple references when I was typing the above comment, I declined to state my position on the matter. I believe that the following references is sufficient to prove notability as it demonstrates independent third-party coverage published in reliable sources:

• Volnei A. Pedroni (2004), Circuit Design with VHDL, MIT Press. — Appendix B is instruction on the use of VHDL in Xilinx ISE.
• Pong P. Chu, (2008), FPGA Prototyping by Verilog Examples: Xilinx Spartan-3 Version, Wiley-Interscience. — As the title suggests, this book is instruction on FPGA design using a Spartan-3 as an example. Xilinx ISE is the design software used, and as such, contains significant coverage of the software throughout the book. I am looking at Section 2.5 (p. 21), which is an overview of the ISE Project Navigator, although there is coverage elsewhere.
• Gina R. Smith, (2010), FPGAs 101: Everything You Need To Know To Get Started, Newnes. — The book is non-trivial instruction on FPGAs, which includes the Xilinx ISE software. Note: I believe Newnes is an Elsevier imprint. Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In light of the references found by HowardBGolden, I am tempted to withdraw this nomination. However, with two outstanding Delete !votes, I can't do that just yet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The two outstanding delete votes are basically agreement with your position. They don't add any independent analysis. Therefore, I don't believe you need to consider them in your decision to withdraw. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of them, yes. The other I don't think so. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The other vote provides no indication that its position was reached by looking at what realiable sources say. It appears that its position was reached by responding to a previous vote. Basically, it says, "Well, if someone says that the article should be kept because the article's topic is interesting, then the article should be deleted." Is this not flawed? Rilak (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's simply not what I see in the argument in question, he was referring to the lack of a stronger argument to sway him to the keep side. I want this editor to decide whether his concern was addressed, and I can't make the decision for him. I've notified this editor, and I'm actually surprised he hasn't responded yet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katekavia Flight 9357[edit]

Katekavia Flight 9357 (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:NOT#NEWS. An article about an aircrash which, upon investigation, seems to only be sourcable to just to the brief burst of news on the day. There seems to be no evidence that it will become a historically notable crash or significant event, and nothing that is currently known about it supports such a conclusion. As ever, I've no objection to recreation if notability can be proved with some later events. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article meets WP:GNG (significant coverage, independent of the subject, etc) with the sources provided. Wikipedia:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary invalidates your arguement about it becoming historically notable. Maybe you should try to start a centralised discussion about the WP notability guidelines? Lugnuts (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The GNG is a presumption. It does not over-ride NOT#NEWS, and neither does NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG/WP:N with sources, guaranteed additional coverage in the future because investigation has begun, the crash also led to an investigation of the airline itself, meaning it passes the "...precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." clause of WP:EVENT, not to mention the "significant national or international coverage" of the crash. C628 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The GNG is a presumption, and so is EVENT. They do not over-ride NOT#NEWS, nor are they automatic passes if content does not warrant separate articles. And what the source actually says about the investigation of the airline is, "a special commission had been set up to investigate how Katekavia was organizing its flights". That sounds like a matter for the airline article, rather than a justification for keeping a separate crash article. Not to mention that without a conclusion, there is no evidence that this will be of lasting significance to the airline. Even the Aviation project's own aircrash notability essay is clear - do not create crash articles where the only significant consequential impact is on a single airline/airport. As for the crash investigation, such investigations are routine - the 'guaranteed coverage' is, for the purposes of N, completely irrelevant, seeing as we do not write articles on every crash that is ever investigated. The "significant national or international coverage" is infact not significant in the way NOT#NEWS, GNG or even EVENT defines it. It is just what you would routinely expect for a crash of this size, just the standard news wire repetition of local officials statements, so unless you are advocating some kind of automatic inclusion criteria on that basis, I don't see how this assertion supports anything, rather it reinforces the idea this is a NOT#NEWS case. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that this is not a NOTNEWS case, as there have been repercussions because of the crash, which leads to enduring notability. C628 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....and I thought I had already explained how this point doesn't take account of current practice, common sense, or the actual detailed wording in all the policies, guidelines and essays, which go into great detail about these things. You need to refine it, not simply restate it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per C628--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's recent news now but it's just the sort of news with notability that outlasts the news cycle, and should grow considerably as details emerge and investigations are done.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This rationale doesn't make sense to me. We do not keep articles on predictions of future news coverage, which appeared to die out nearly a month ago, and an investigation, impending or otherwise, does not confer automatic notability on Wikipeda, as explained at length in reply to C628. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, WP is not a crystal ball. But this is already longer and better sourced, from reliable sources, than many articles that appear on the front page as a "did you know...?". My observation was that it may seem a little short on the detail for such a significant accident but that's not unusual, and will improve as investigations are done. And with significant coverage not just from Russia media or air industry sources but from the likes of CNN and Xinhua it already easily meets general notability guidelines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, coverage from CNN or Xinhua does not give automatic notability - these are routine, and pretty brief, international wire reprints, and in depth coverage from Russia also does not defeat NOT#NEWS. The air industry sources are irrelevent - they cover anything and everything, well outside Wikipedia's scope or sense of historical significance. Coverage from a future report also doesn't count in terms of defeating NOT#NEWS - we simply do not have an article on all the crashes that get reported on - which is a huge number. I would be happy for the Aviation project to try and propose this, but right now, it is nowhere near to being a match with current practice. And simple article length and quality of sourcing is irrelevent - the nomination is about NOT#NEWS, not style, or the GNG in the sources sense (as opposed to the EVENT sense). MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 28 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. WP:HAMMER is NOT a valid reason to delete, article is well sourced (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent's fifth studio album[edit]

50 Cent's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No title, no track listing, not even sure which record label. WP:HAMMER applies. NtheP (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is well sourced, and thus does provide verifiable and relevant information. WP:HAMMER refers to those cases where the majority of the article is speculation, which is not the case here.173.8.11.157 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 50 Cent. There's some relevant, encyclopedic material here about 50 Cent's recordings since his last album, but the fact remains that this new album doesn't exist, and although there appears to be a lot of material that has been recorded, it's anyone's guess as to if/how that will be released. It seems that the tracks originally recorded for Black Magic have been shelved, so we can't be sure if anything has been recorded yet that will actually be included on his 5th studio album, and there's no justification for having an article on it.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article is about "Black Magic" which according to 50 no longer exists. Red Flag on the Right Side 19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HAMMER. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not delete it. It is well sourced, has numerous producers listed on it, and 50 is beginning to generate hype for the album. We're going to have to re-create it if we delete it in about a month again anyway, so why not leave it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with Broomtherapper. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes this article should be kept. As creator of this article, I ensured that there was plenty of relevant information in the first place sourced on numerous websites - and more verified information in relation to this article arrives frequently. Of course, the album is no longer known as "Black Magic" - though there is a new 50 Cent album in the works. Iconmike2007 (talk)iconmike2007 11:46, 02 September 2010

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19-Nordehydroepiandrosterone[edit]

19-Nordehydroepiandrosterone (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)

As far as I can tell, the named chemical compound is not mentioned at all in any of the references listed. The entirety of the text of this article, written primarily by one editor, is original research unsupported by the references. It constitutes synthesis which is against policy. A search of the scientific literature turns up only two articles that mention this chemical compound. Neither article supports either the notability of the compound or the veracity of the article's content. (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#19NorDehydroepiandrosterone for details). In all, except for the data in the infobox, the article fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any WP:RS to establish WP:N. Derild4921☼ 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see that this one's going to be tough, and require research by multiple editors. My contribution to the double-checking, eliminating one: This isn't in FiehnLab's metabolite list as far as I can see. Uncle G (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve referencing. It is discussed on several sites as an anabolic steroid, suggested as a dietary component, and is discussed by the FDA, thus notability is clearly provided. However, maybe it is better to discuss NorDHEAs all together in this article? Nageh (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see what the problem is. It indeed seems not discussed at all in any of the references. The only reliable references to be found are that of the FDA, which does not really add much to this article anyway. It is interesting to see there is a promotional site which, despite different text, cites more or less the same references as this wikipedia article. While it may indeed be in use as an anabolic steroid, without better references I change my vote to 'delete'. Nageh (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Frankly, I am not an expert in the area of this specific compound, but I've done my checks yesterday, when this was posted at WP:CHEM, and could not find (i) evidence for this compound in the cited refs, (ii) evidence for this compound in journal articles (WoS, some chemical locators). I guess the structure formula was drawn mechanically, from the formal name. No matter how good such an article looks, it has to be deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject of the article doesn't appear in the citations, and I find exactly one casual mention on searching ("specific abundant metabolites of 19-nor-5-androsten-3,17-dione are 19-nordehydroandrosterone and 19-nordehydroepiandrosterone."[24]). Not enough for WP:N. The bulk of the article is unsourced WP:OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]