< 30 August	1 September >

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer W. Kühne[edit]

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

Failing notablity (WP:PROF). Search on Web of Science returns 11 published articles over the period 1991-2002 with a max. 19 citations per article (very low). No hits on Google Books. Google search returns mostly blogs and wiki-echoes. His Atlantis theory caused a quick media stir, but I see no reliable (scientific) source confirming it is notable, and it sounds odd that a theoretial physicists starts seriously reinterpreting Plato and archeology. In summary, there is no doubt that he is not a notable physicist. The question is whether he managed to become media-notable, as a scientist who speculated about Atlantis. I guess not, and that WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:1E do apply here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof or WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as it does not appear to pass wp:prof. Nergaal (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability per WP:PROF. In addition, WP:NOT#NEWS is also applicable. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all of the references being from the individual in question, the policy is to delete. I might change my mind if someone could locate sources that meet WP:RS criteria. HeartSWild (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kuhne's Atlantis work has been reported by Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Time, BBC, ABC. Obviously, these media think that his work is relevant enough to be reported. Why should Wikipedia come to a different conclusion? — Careful Media Research (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This appears as a media echo of a single event (all are news articles). How about acceptance (of a scientific theory) in the scientific world? Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether Kuhne's theory is accepted in the scientific world or not. But Wikipedia has a number of entries about people whose ideas are not accepted by scientists, e. g. Charles Berlitz Immanuel Velikovsky Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory Werner Wickboldt. Only the first two of them are authors of books. Only one of them (Velikovsky) is/was a professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful Media Research (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish archaeologists headed by Prof. Sebastian Celestino perform an archaeological excavation to verify the Atlantis theory of Kuhne. The (preliminary) result seems positive. I used a babelfish translation for the El Pais article.

El Pais (possible discovery of Tartessos-Atlantis, 2010)[1]

That doesn't give a translation, but the relevant bit says "Most scientific distance is taken with the possible belief that Atlantis is under Hinojos Marshes. That the city described by Plato, silver doors and circular organization, had sunk without trace in Doñana is described by Spanish investigators as nonsense or, more soft, "hard to believe."" Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Strong keep Worldwide media attention is a sufficient argument that Rainer W. Kühne is kept. A team of archaeologists examines his Atlantis theory since 2005. The scientists of the CSIC have published the results of their work in the annual Resultados de la Investigacion en el Espacio Natural de Donana (2005: p. 117; 2006: pp. 105-108; 2007: pp. 67-73; 2008: pp. 42-48).

http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2005.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2006.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2007.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Ehrlich (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC) — Anton Ehrlich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Media Reports on Kuhne's Atlantis Work[edit]

Reports in Popular Scientific Magazines[edit]

Scientific American[2] National Geographic[3] New Scientist [4] EARSEL Newsletter[5] NyTeknik[6] GEO[7] Galileu[8]

Reports in Magazines[edit]

Time[9] Liberoreporter[10] Der Stern[11] Profil[12] Svenska Magasinet[13] Focus[14][15]

Reports in Newspapers[edit]

El Pais (possible discovery of Tartessos-Atlantis, 2010)[16] (Daily) Telegraph[17] Daily Excelsior[18] IOL[19] The Epoch Times[20] Die Welt[21] Berliner Morgenpost[22] Hamburger Abendblatt[23] Die Presse[24] Wochenblatt[25] Aftenposten[26] Dagbladet[27] Vjesnik[28] El Mundo[29] El Pais (first report)[30] El Pais (second report) [31] Planet[32] Hürriyet[33] Aksam Gazetesi[34] Origo[35] Evenimentul Zulei[36] Bosanska Kostajnica[37] Bild-Zeitung[38] Milliyet [39] Wales Online[40] Sabah[41] Radikal[42] El Periodico de Aragon[43] La Voz de Galicia[44] Star Gazete[45] La Voz[46] El Periodico Mediterraneo[47] ABC (Spain)[48]

Reports in Radio and Television[edit]

BBC[49] ABC (Australia)[50] Radiotelevisione Italiana[51] ORF[52] BBC Mundo (first report)[53] BBC Mundo (second report)[54] Cesky Rozhlas[55] Radio Praha[56] TV2[57] MTV3[58] Polskie Radio[59] BBC Brasil (first report)[60] BBC Brasil (second report)[61] BBC Polish[62] TF1[63] NTVMSNBC[64]

Delete or merge to Marisma de Hinojos per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 4 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) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mortimer[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of an MMA fighter who fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter fails WP:MMANOT. Also has no references. Astudent0 (talk) 14:50, 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) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fate MMA 1[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about the only event put on by a new MMA organization. WP:N says that routine sports results are not notable and that's all this article is. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article covering a non-notable card for a non-notable promotion. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Astudent0 (talk) 14:47, 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) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fate MMA[edit]

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

This article has no independent sources and is about a new organization that has put on only 1 event. The article claims it attracts most of the top MMA fighters in the world and puts on numerous shows annually, while at the same time saying its first and only event was in June of this year. Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One card with non-notable fighters doesn't make for a notable promotion, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability is apparent. Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Probably could have been speedied. No proof for some clearly false claims about its fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 14:47, 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) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Green Shopping Center[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center Dough 48 72 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and non-notable. Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. It is unambiguous advertising, as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not spam, but no indicaton of notability. Probably would be speedy A7 if malls were included in that criterion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are articles on what the bulk of the article, the theatre, is about: Star Ledger, Another Star Ledger and there are various other generic things, regarding shops inside of it, some more about the theatre for some reason. - Theornamentalist (talk)
Delete as there is no indication of notablity. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub about a non-notable local shopping center. The Star Ledger stories are not really about the shopping center, but rather, changes planned for its theater and others. Anyhow it's kind of hard to say the theater comprises the "bulk" of the article; it's two sentences out of three, but that's not very "bulk"y. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hah.. instead of getting into a debate about the definition of the word bulk, other than the sentence about its location which I'm sure could referenced, the rest of the "article" could be properly referenced between those two articles. On the content, I would say delete, but on the fact that it does have reliable sources, I'd say extremely weak keep. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:29, 6 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 speedy keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Party (Serbia)[edit]

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

Duplicate article (See:Serbian Progressive Party (historical), suggested merge before but the content is too bulky. Buttons (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Buttons (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close; Redirected & Merged, history-merge at will. I merged the contents -- it took me some 15 minutes; they were mostly duplicates of each other. The edit histories of both pages are tangled, and probably both are necessary to preserve attribution. No such user (talk) 07:07, 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 redirect to Phantasm IV Oblivion#Inception and possible sequel. JForget 00:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasm 5[edit]

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

A "proposed" film which has not started production and there is no indication in the sources that it will ever exist. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. The "rumor and speculation" about whether the film will ever be made is not significant, and is not covered by reliable sources. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phantasm IV Oblivion sequel section like how other WP:CRYSTAL sequels are redirected. 76.66.192.49 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and set redirect to Phantasm IV Oblivion#Inception and possible sequel as this article is far WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 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. Courcelles 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Five (2010)[edit]

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

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. While most hurricanes and tropical storms are notable, and are pretty much the easiest way to get a featured article into your edit history, tropical depressions such as this are unlikely to be remembered unless it was the first of the season, which Alex is and not TD5. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮ 卍} 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Storms don't have to be memorable its own article. This passes WP:N. Even then, a TC article should be merged not deleted. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TD5 has significant enough impact to warrant an article. And would you please tell me where it may not meet WP:N? I don't see anything there that may come close to not meeting it. And as YE said, just needs impact, doesn't have to be remembered. Saying what I said in the talk page, not all hurricanes are notable, and not all TDs are non notable. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just putting my two cents in, the depression had a rather interesting meteorological history, which is why I made it. No other storm has taken such a path over Louisiana, southward through Alabama, and nearly reforming in the Gulf of Mexico. Further updates are ensured, once its tropical cyclone report comes out. Additionally, it appeared in several news sources. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly and thoroughly referenced to reliable sources, meets WikiProject notability consensus (tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin automatically meet notability criteria, and are only reliant on sourcing for existence), satisfies summary style concerns for 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, and the deletion rationale is flimsy at best. There are multiple examples of tropical depressions with high-quality articles, so there is plenty of precedent for the notability of these types of storms. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above and my comment on Talk:Tropical Depression Five (2010). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be a decent amount of information to sustain an article. Dough 48 72 02:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Snow Keep, seems to be consensus 68.45.109.14 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep This storm effected the gulf coast oil spil lrecovery effort and also effected a number of states with the after effects. I say this is notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds just about unanimous. When is the delete tag going away? Dondegroovily (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Curtis23's Us al ions 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the interesting MH as well as my comments on the talkpage.Jason Rees (talk) 17:57, 6 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 closed as moot; page is now a redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lion of judah[edit]

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

Another user nominated I have fixed the nomination- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I noticed this AFD was created by the original Author who created the page in lowercase by mistake and created the same page under the proper title so I have turned the page into a Redirect instead.

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Oja[edit]

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

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

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

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

Walled garden of cross-promotional articles about a programmer and author called Dan Oja and his various publishing ventures. Claims of notability hence not speediable, but no evidence of notability and no independent references for any of the articles. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM andy (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Also, from Dan Oja:
- An experienced programmer, Dan has developed numerous software products for education and digital publishing....
From Ordinary Heroes: Six Stars in the Window
- This is not a dry, historical account of events; this is a detailed, accurate depiction of the real-life experiences of these ordinary soldiers, these ordinary heroes, drawn against the backdrop of those most tumultuous times. This is a film about a family, all of whose sons fought in World War II.
From MediaTechnics Corporation:
- Two of the most well-known members of the team are June Parsons and Dan Oja., Together they have co-authored almost 200 best-selling computer textbook titles....
All of these would seem to be fairly promotional and non-neutral in tone. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I've looked for WP:RS for all on Google and Gnews, and drawn blanks on establishing notability. Bigger digger (talk) 23:18, 5 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) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visua[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:23, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew numerology[edit]

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

Unreferenced (tagged since February 2008), orphan (tagged since February 2009) page which appears to be OR, as the interpretations of numbers do not jive with traditional Jewish interpretation (e.g. gematria). A much more detailed treatment of the subject exists at Significance of numbers in Judaism. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale above. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone who knows more than I do about this can explain its notability (and fix the OR/uncited stuff). I agree with the nom and will add that it seems like a content fork. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR combined with other stuff. Avi (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 6 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) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Tree[edit]

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

~~Article is based on original research (unpublished material). Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability for this subject~~. Keep. The author of the article has produced at least one significant citation.Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for further information and for notability, but that hasn't happened. No evidence of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd say it's WP:OR but can't be sure. A mathematician needs to look at it. Certainly their is no mention in Google books, and you would expect at least a few hits. scope_creep (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article provides improvement of two previously known since 60 years ago methods of constructing prefix codes. Original research started 60 years ago. The method is recognized and used by independent software developer, not affiliated with author. NO NOTABILITY, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I suggest to ask an opinion of mathematicians involved in data compression. User Proudfoot published article about garden in China. That does not say anything about his qualification in the article subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide independent, third party reliable sources? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here http://code.google.com/p/lzham/ The person who published reference and tested algorithm is not my friend. I did not study with him in university and did not drink in a pub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where does "polar tree" appear in that reference? And who published it? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Projects hosted at Google Code, SourceForge, and the like are not publications; they are repositories for code (and not necessarily endorsed by the sites that maintain them, anyway), and as such they don't qualify as reliable sources. Moreover, you seem to be confused about the concept of original research. It really isn't that hard to grasp: the synthesis of ideas not based on verifiable sources. From here:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. [...] Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Can you provide any such citations? Sebastian Garth (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proudfoot, You try to move discussion away from the matter. We have to discuss merits of the article among professionals. Instead you try to question the citation. Citation shows that algorithm was found by someone, tested and left in software, not thrown away, because it provided improvement of exact the same nature that is claimed in the article. As I already said, you and Sebastian are pretending to follow Wikipedia policy to a letter when speaking about my article while looking to the side when I mention article about ROLZ algorithm. Because if you or Sebastian nominate ROLZ to deletion somebody will tell you both SHUT UP and you do as ordered. And ROLZ article is a classical case of violation of most Wikipedia policy. I will not nominate ROLZ to deletion or report it because I judge articles for its scientific values and from my point of view this article should be written but from yours it should be deleted. Go ahead and show your blind justice on ROLZ.

You don't understand how Wikipedia works. We are not here to discuss viability or whether or not some piece of code exists. Nobody doubts that. Wikipedia is a refernce of third resort. That means under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, reliable sources must be provided. This may be the greatest snippet of code that ever existed, but unless you can source it, it does no good, and it can't stay here, by policy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than go ahead and do same thing to ROLZ and let me see how you will be ignored. ROLZ allegedly was introduced in WinRK. But it is proprietary software, disassembling is against the law. In the same way that in Polar Tree the algorithm was taken and implemented in BALZ compressor. One implementation and no explanation. Do you see similarities? What makes ROLZ worse that Polar Tree it is not even explained in the article. So, what we have: no reliable source, original research and no explanation. Look when the topic was introduced and look how long it is staying and neither you nor Sebastian suggest to remove it. Do not suggest me to nominate ROLZ for deletion because for me it is great and important algorithm but for you it is not because it is not cited in reliable sources not properly explained and is original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you are obviously unconcerned about Wikipedia policies. Bottom line: if you can't agree with the terms of use then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in the first place. Simple as that. Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C-processor (talk), unfortunately Wikipedia takes a conservative approach to new ideas. You'll either have to publish your work in a peer-reviewed medium or get an article written about it in a well-known publication first, before it will be accepted here. I suggest you devote your energy to these goals. Good luck! I hope your article will be here soon. — HowardBGolden (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and others keep repeating same things over and over ignoring obvious facts that I point out. Wikipedia publish new ideas, and ROLZ is one of them. You and others, participating in this discussion, do not make any decision. There is a MAN IN THE SHADOW that decides what stays and what goes away. He nominated article to deletion and not willing to identify himself.

Actually, it was I who nominated the article, and no, I don't decide "what stays and what goes". Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, revert edits, and add content to the encyclopedia. It is by consensus that we reach our decisions, together. Furthermore, the reason why I haven't looked into the ROLZ article, quite frankly, is because I don't feel like playing your little game of "tit for tat". Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have Ph.D. in Automatic Control and published many articles in peer-reviewed journals. I know how it all arranged. Articles are rejected independently on their merits unless its publication is arranged by a confidential phone call to editor-in-chief from a person he knows very well. The reason of rejection is avoiding responsibility by a reviewer, who can not possibly keep track on everything what is happening and afraid to pass plagiarized materials. Only articles sent from individuals with established reputation are published. My original article is published on my web site where I do not need to bow editor. Since it is already published it can't be republished somewhere else, journals do not accept copies. Wikipedia is different. It informs public, so it explains materials published somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is no doubt challenging to publish material for the first time, it is by no means impossible. You could, for example, contact an expert in the field (who has published papers WRT information theory or the like) and ask if they would be willing to co-write an article with you or some such (a professor at the university that you attended might be a good candidate for such a request). Moreover, if you haven't already submitted your article to a reputable publication, do so. Someone there may be interested enough to take a chance on a good idea (it may help if you point out to them that you have published in another field). Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New independent reference Matt Mahoney web catalog. The site is long. To find reference you need to find expression Polar codes in it. The site holder Matt Mahoney is world expert in data compression. His program PAQ8 holds the world record in compression [65]. And we did not meet. I showed more independent usage than ROLZ.
Sebastian, stop discussing unimportant details. Speak on the context. I presented independent acknowledgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

------------------------------------------------------------------

I presented independent references that can be considered as peer-reviewed, because my referees provided unsolicited testing and links in a record time since first publication. In Large Text Compression Benchmark Matt Mahoney also explained the matter of the algorithm to his readers with his own words. Taking into consideration that Polar Tree or Polar Codes is only modification of Huffman and Shannon-Fano codes and not represent completely new research but rather modification I insist on keeping this article in Wikipedia. The name introduced by independent referees and assigned in accordance with other two codes named after inventors Shannon-Fano and Huffman. I suggest the individual that nominated article to deletion come out of the shadow and confront me in open scientific discussion. It is perfectly clear that those who participated in discussion so far did not nominate this article to deletion and their opinions will not be considered in final determination. Should this article happened to be deleted the brief history of the process along with independent references will be published on my web space [66]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Mahoney article would serve as an adequate reference, I think. Accordingly, I've changed my opinion to "keep". Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sebastian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted as the nominator withdrew their nomination, but there were 'delete' recommendations. As a result, I am unwilling to close this as 'keep' at this time. However, if all those who commented here are in agreement that this should be kept, it can be closed before the 7 day relisting period is up, unless further 'delete's are added.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to thank somebody who contributed to the article by editing my clumsy English. Now the article sounds much better its original version. Let me also summarize my reasons for keeping article:

1. It is not radically new data compression technique but slight modification of other known methods and has same purpose and its own advantage and disadvantage. 2. In data compression area there is no such thing as best algorithm, because it depends on data. If you ask any expert to advice which data compression method to use, the answer will be 'What is your data?'. Wikipedia role is to inform people and let them choose. 3. Waiting when method is used by many researchers and referred by many people is unacceptable in computer science, because it needs at least 10 years and what would Wikipedia look like if it publishes achievements in computer science from 10 years ago. People would not address to it. The computer science novelties have to be published quicker. 4. The suggested technique was noticed immediately after publication, incorporated into a big project (that does not happen very often) and cataloged by expert in industry, so we have two independent reviews. I apologize if I was not very polite during debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have left messages on the talk pages of HowardBGolden, Scope creep and Everard Proudfoot asking if they would leave a further comment here-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my delete. Still not notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can remide first message of Everard Proudfoot that says: Can you provide independent, third party reliable sources?

The source that I provided later is catalog of all known data compression algorithms and programs mainained by guru in data compression Matt Mahoney - the computer analyst who holds the record in data compression, which is above benchmarks of many corporations that sell software. Matt Mahoney has Ph.D. in computer science. His catalog has status of on-line journal and not different from other peer reviewed journals. Mr. Mahoney has a reputation, he capable to understan merits of data compression algorithm and will definitely not put into catalog something that is wrong or ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Matt Mahoney is considered an expert in this field, then I think notability is established. (This isn't a field I know much about, nor have I read much about this subject, so I can't give any opinion on Matt Mahoney's eminence or lack thereof.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are zero reliable sources to indicate this is notable. Note that the reference to Matt Mahoney appears to be this which specifically states "This is an open benchmark. Anyone may contribute results. Please read the rules first." -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is confirmation of novelty of the algorithm provided independently by industry expert in the form of notification to readers. So it is same as publication in peer reviewed journal. Anyone can contribute and many programs that are there effective but do not have novelties in algorithm. They are simply listed as benchmark. Polar codes are mentioned in different context. The benchmark shown, the matter of algorithm explained. The link to different from author implementation is provided. Wikipedia purpose is to notify public. Notability is not a goal. Notability is a means for preventing unverified materials to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider comment of Whpq as a personal attack by using specific exaggeration in the language and in tone. What means "There are zero reliable sources". The confidence of the tone directed to brainwash reader. This statement is totally and knowingly false. I remind that there are 2 independent sources. One is description of the improvement achieved by incorporating of the algorithm into large data compression software. What might be unreliable here. Does he believes that improvement is not achieved or algorithm is not incorporated. The code is published the researcher that did that has professional reputation. The article indicated that decompression is 12% faster. Does user Whpq understand that if it is video we can pass 12% more data for the same time and improve quality of HDTV. What happen if somebody beats olympic record on 12%. Is that not important either. Second link is Matt Mahoney site. Matt benchmarks everything but if there is no novelty in algorithm he does not indicate novelty but place a single record: name of program, ratio, compression time, decompression time, memory usage. In my case Matt Mahoney explained readers the novelty of the algorithm. That is not just benchmark, that is information about novelty, NOVELTY, N-O-V-E-L-T-Y. Does user Whpq presume Matt not telling the truth or what? Benchmarking means that testing every program. Mahoney personally ran the program several times, measured used resources, looked at the code and so on. This is the matter of benchmarking. Can user Whpq indicate any particular false or wrong statement on Mahoney site? I wish this user luck with his article about Mount Abbot in British Columbia that he started. Admin please instruct users to stick with academic language and to stop false and absurd exaggerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-processor (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 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 merge to Bas-Lag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Races of Bas-Lag[edit]

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

No sources, no notability, unlikely to generate such coverage in the future as a lot of it is relatively minor background detail in novels. Geoff B (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after trim to Bas-Lag. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after summarizing, to reach out to Jclemens and other editors looking to build a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 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) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Smiling[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, without any explanation. Non-notable song, and the sooner it is deleted the better. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As indicated by edit history and talk page discussion several days ago, the IP is the same contributor as the article's creator. JNW (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this song is notable per WP:NSONG. I am also deeply disturbed that I remember Uncle Jesse singing this. <sigh> P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry--the mind is a rather indiscriminate collector of such items. Forty years later I can sing my elementary school's song, in its entirety. JNW (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really really minor element of one episode of a sitcom. Including the lyrics makes this a copyvio as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because it has been played in a sitcom doesn't mean that it is notable across the world. Superchrome (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song is not even notable for Full House. Would it even make a Full House Wiki? Doubtful. HeartSWild (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Carreño[edit]

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

No references, may fail WP:GNG and every "song" on WP related to her also fails WP:GNG (if you see the list below this entry). Superchrome (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lilias Rider Haggard[edit]

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

Has little references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Derild 49 21 ☼ 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a reference for WP:V's sake, but I don't think that that demonstrates any degree of notability. WorldCat shows 4 unique books held at very few places. I doubt that satisfies WP:AUTHOR. I'll keep looking. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors and notability is not inheritable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for your comments. There are several Wikipedia articles with links to this article, and I can add more information and references to this article (later this month, as I don't have the time right now). LRH may not be as famous as her father, but she is well known in her native county of Norfolk and further afield. Jcspurrell, September 2, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcspurrell (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the link does not have to stay. If you can put down references here it might to establish WP:N.Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Superchrome (talk) 17:51, 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriends: Winter Wonders[edit]

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

Seems like an unremarkable book, no sources or indications of importance given. This is likely a promotional article from the author; user has no other edits. — Timneu22 · talk 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Also nominating with this AfD: Girlfriends: Fresh Faces. Both book articles by the same user. — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly not even promotional, as I can't find any evidence of it. Lulu haven't published it, Amazon don't seem to list it - and they'll list almost anything so long as they don't have to keep it in stock... No author's name given - probably as well considering the character list and the teenage style and spelling/grammar. No, that's cruel. I see this as a teenager's idea for a series - which is not yet written or at least not nearly ready to be submitted. I wish the author good luck - teenage romantic fiction can be profitable but it's not an easy field. I would suggest that the characters are a little perfect - and 'Ty Li Yung' is neither a Japanese nor a Thai name in my experience. It looks rather more Chinese and even there I have doubts about the 'Ty'. Her sister 'Mei-Ling' does have a Chinese name. Ty lives with "her japanese father who owns a very successful chain of expensive japanese restaurants around the world" - and he's living in (with all due respect to a city I visit at times on business) Leeds? Peridon (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My delete should be taken as Both - the additional nomination came in after I'd posted. Peridon (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I too am unable to find anything at all by searching either for the books' titles or for the characters' names. Seems to be unverifiable. Deor (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, violates WP:V. At best this is an unencyclopedic article on a non-notable topic. Likely a WP:WEBHOST issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both article fail notability criteria for books. Every book has a plot and charakters. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:49, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Siegel[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced as to the notability of this fashion designer. The piss-poor level of writing and dreadful formatting within the article itself does little to help. However, I'm not personally sure of what the WP:N standard is for fashion designers, hence an AfD instead of an A7. The references at the bottom of the article are all either blogs, self-published, or brief "press release" blurbs. If a major department store (or Harrods, for that matter - muah!) carries a particular label, it may (or may not) confer some level of base notability for the label itself - but for the designer, I'm not so sure. Badger Drink (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being sold by Harrods would confer a certain degree of notability to me (not that I'd know fashion wear if I fell over it...), but apart from the GQ (I've heard of that but don't read it) article there is little reliable evidence given. I would think that where the label and designer are the same (or the designer is half a partnership), there is notability for the designer. Where someone is a back-room unknown (as even Yves St Laurent was once), there is probably no notability until the nest is abandoned. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is asserted based on the future growth and fame on her line, Baartmans and Siegel. The company website gives scant proof of any significant accomplishments in the field, other than products that will be sold at Harrods. Note also that both partners (Siegel and Baartmans) just graduated from design school in 2010, so it's not surprising they have done little with their careers. Simply having products sold at Harrods (which has not even happened yet), is not enough to establish notability. --Crunch (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this individual may be notable, there's no evidence to support it in the article. Until reliable sources are referenced, the policy is to delete. I would change my mind if someone would properly source the article. HeartSWild (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tharial[edit]

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

hoax? no sources, not on map कमल (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a hoax. I've added the coordinates of the place to the article. Deor (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Deor. It is an actual village.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Deor show it is an actual village. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a hoax, which apparently was the only reason the nom threw this up for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 22:51, 4 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2009[edit]

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

Not notable enough. I have no objection to the Miss Tourism International article however I feel that this pageant is not notable enough to have articles for each year of competition. There are no credible third party sources for the Miss Tourism International 2009 pageant, nor could I find any. Important information from here should be merged in the Miss Tourism International article, but I don't believe the 2009 pageant is notable enough for its own page. MissAmericaGirl (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR. This is just a list of otherwise non-notable people. SnottyWong ^talk 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 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. according to the consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allen Raymond[edit]

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

Non-notable food safety civil servant, who has been routinely interviewed by the media as part of his work. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Claritas § 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue that being undersecretary is sufficient to meet the "national office" requirement for notability at WP:POLITICIAN; however, I know some may disagree, but I think there are enough references provided on the man in the article to establish independent notability. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of a senior position of a U.S. federal agency that required nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, not a "civil servant" job. It does not improve the encyclopedia in any way to delete information about people who hold important public offices like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the points made above. Individual is notable based on the office(s) he has held and the decisions he has made. Article could use some improvement though. HeartSWild (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable civil servant position, no assertion of notability. Routine interviews only, per nom. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete / Merge (to Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety). A couple of press announcements do not a biography make, and there's no sources pre-dating his appointment. The details about food safety seem to belong as well or better in some article about recent US food safety. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Undersecretary positions can be fairly big deals. This one doesn't appear to be, but I can see reasonable arguments for keeping or merging. A decent quality stub like this does no harm to the encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 15:59, 4 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttermaran[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD placed by IP editor who may not know policy, PROD removed by relatively new user who doesn't recognize notability policy. Quick search for sources only reveals 9 WP:GHITS which argues pretty strongly that the IP was right. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we used to have a higher tolerance for articles on obscure open source projects, but generally we require some independent significant coverage these days. Gigs (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched a couple forums on what tools people are using to cut/split videos, and Cuttermaran never showed up in any of the suggestions. If the people who do this task regularly don't even know about/recommend this software, then I think it fails the notability test. Livitup (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources = no article. SnottyWong ^babble 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snottywong. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reliable source is used. The company might be notable, but the only choice is to delete until someone proves it as such. HeartSWild (talk) 14:54, 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 Delete per WP:SNOW. Mandsford 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Alex Kacaniklic[edit]

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

Deleted by PROD back in 2008, nothing has changed in this player's career since then - he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has just signed for Fulham - lots of people will want to read about him Fulhamfb (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to read that "Alex Kacaniklic is a player for Fulham" then they can look at the BBC or something. He is not currently notable for Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He will be when he breaks into the team....just like any other player....no reason to delete Fulhamfb (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the information isn't available anywhere else....BBC wouldn't have anything on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulhamfb (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "he will be famous in the future" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. And because his career is so early, and consists of nothing beyond him being a youth player for Fulham, there are many more sources (club profile page, for example) that are currently much more suitable than Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 20:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has no club profile page...you seem to have something against him. You said his carreer was a 'fail'. Fulhamfb (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the 'crystal ball' arguement is completely irrelevant....I looked him up, I'm sure thousands of Fulham fans wanted to know who he was. He is already famous and is a dead cert to become more famous. Your ideas have no base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulhamfb (talk • contribs) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't even have a club profile page, then surely that shows his lack of notability?! Of course I have nothing against the player, where did I say his career was a "fail"? Giant Snowman 20:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a page because he just joined......you said: he still fails.Fulhamfb (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that the information on people in Wikipedia could be found anywhere else about anyone. For instance, the Queen. There are other websites with information about her, but it doesnt mean she should get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulhamfb (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG - guidelines for notability that footballers must adhere to to be considered notable on Wikipedia. Until he meets these guidelines, he is not worthy of an article. Giant Snowman 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Also the information isn't available anywhere else" - therefore the article is unsourced and as a biography of a living person should be deleted. If he is famous - where's the evidence? If people want to know more about him, they're not going to get much from this. When he does get known, try again. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. This could have been a CSD surely? Steve-Ho (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for CSD but it isn't eligible as it was previously deleted by PROD, not AfD. Giant Snowman 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence to suggest that he passes either Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG. It's also an unsourced BLP, which has been a no-no here since March. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG as mentioned. Recreate if and when he makes his debut in a fully-professional competition or as a full-international. --Jimbo^[online] 13:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. He probably will become notable, but he isn't yet. —Half Price 15:45, 5 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. I completely discounted both WP:VAGUEWAVEs (one keep, one delete) and the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments relating to her predecessor don't hold much weight either. I find the BLP1E argument to be the most compelling, as well as the only one based in policy, as opposed to guidelines. However, I would suggest that the subject may be worthy of coverage in other articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hagen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for notability concerns as previous AFD was cut short (deleted as WP:CSD#G5 and then restored). Note that searches for "Elizabeth Hagen" turn up a number of other Elizabeth Hagens, so casual assertions of "lots of hits" aren't helpful. Note that the current article has zero information about the BLP subject besides her appointment. Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some sources quite specifically on her—her appointment was apparently surprising; cf. [67]—but not too much. She certainly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (also [68]), but all is related to the single event of her appointment. WP:BLP1E says we shouldn't have articles on people covered only in the context of a single event if they are otherwise low-profile. In this case, Hagen's predecessor Richard Allen Raymond also has an article and some coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the bare fact of his appointment—suggesting that Hagen will also get more coverage over time. Ucucha 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Raymond's article looks doubtful; a couple of press announcements do not a biography make, and there's no sources pre-dating his appointment. The details about food safety seem to belong as well or better in some article about recent US food safety. Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a shame that we are at AfD #2 for no other reason than process wankery, but here we go. This is a textbook WP:BLP1E, only in the news in the context of being a recess appointee. Such appointments will raise a brouhaha among the opposition party, but are just a matter of routine politics beyond that. The position itself is not notable; Raymond's article should head to AfD soon as well, while his predecessor Elsa Murano is notable for other things. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - holding this sort of civil service job does not make you meet WP:BIO in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Massive WP:1event issues too. I think I'll nominate Raymond. Claritas § 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly per Claritas. Not very good sources either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom & WP:BLP1E. Codf1977 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^chatter 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she is only notable for one event and looks a bit like a news coverage about a her appointment. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely a person occupying a notable position is notable herself. I don't rightly see the problem here--if being nominated for such a job counts as a single event, then we possibly need to rethink "single event." Such a nomination is hardly the same as a single arrest or something like that. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "a person occupying a notable position is notable herself." - not necessarily. If there isn't enough material to create something resembling a biography, it's better handled as part of the position itself, or a related article. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. This is not a "civil service job", it's a senior position of a U.S. federal agency that requires nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Prima facie notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual easily meets notability standards per her office. Her unusual appointment and confirmation add to her notability. Easy keep, but article needs serious work. HeartSWild (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the office itself is questionable at best. Recess appointments are routine, not unusual in the slightest. They become a minor news blip as the opposition party, equally routinely, has a hissy fit. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not your average recess appointment. HeartSWild (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references used goes into it a bit. Please note that I am not arguing notability based on her nomination and confirmation. I am only saying that they add to her notability. HeartSWild (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's just too vague. I presume you mean the WP article [69] which notes Hagen was not first choice - but that's not really about her, and in any case hardly likely to be that unusual. Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about any singular event, but the entire body of evidence. She meets notability criteria based on the important office she holds. She is the senior official of a US Federal Agency. In addition, the significant media coverage she received just from her nomination and confirmation adds to her notability. HeartSWild (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not falling foul of WP:NOTINHERITED? I'm not convinced the office qualifies as a "major political office" (WP:POLITICIAN footnote 9), and history suggests that these types of offices gain little coverage besides the appointment itself and standard public relations stuff. The result is a pretty poor excuse for a biography. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Whether or not this is a political office is debatable. In fact, government agencies are supposed to be a-political. A quick Google search revealed a near endless supply of reliable sources per WP:RS on the individual. If regular notability criteria shouldn't be applied to this person, then wikipedia's policies need to be changed. I agree that the the article needs significant work. HeartSWild (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of those "endless" sources? My searches found an awful lot of stuff that wasn't about this Elizabeth Hagen (I mean, you're excluding reports of her appointment, right, per BLP1E?). Rd232 ^talk 11:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Undersecretary positions can be fairly big deals. If not a keep, surely a merge, with target page Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Ray^Talk 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge would be the best - it seems likely at this point (unless more sources appear) that this would be the most encyclopedic way to discuss the activities of the various Under Secretaries of Food Safety, including predecessor Richard Allen Raymond (also subject of an AFD now). Rd232 ^talk 11:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N and WP:GNG Minor4th 08:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming it doesn't make it so. I have yet to see a reliable source that doesn't run afoul of BLP1E issues relating to her appointment. Rd232 ^talk 11:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- note that nom and most of the delete votes are from editors who have been in a very active battle with the creator of this article, who is now blocked. This appears to be pure vindictiveness, and it's disturbing that it is administrators who are engaged in this type of behavior. Minor4th 08:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. There is no dispute between me and either the account which created the article or the banned user the account was a sock of. There is, however, a difference of opinion between me and Minor4th on matters of climate change. Rd232 ^talk 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hagen is in the news this weekend as the government's point person in dealing with a new outbreak of foodborne illness, apparently caused by a currently unregulated strain of E. coli in ground meat. See e.g. [70][71]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 September 2010
Keep sufficient sources. I agree that such positions are usually notable--her's in particular appears to me. A US Under-Secretary is much more than just a spokesperson DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 7 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. —fetch ·comms 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Sargeant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns. Was subject of an AFD discussion cut short by being speedy deleted G5 (as creation of banned user), then restored. Since previous AFD seems to have been heading for delete, a properly concluded debate seems called for. Rd232 ^talk 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had received some substantial coverage even before his appointment by Obama; for example [72] and [73]. Ucucha 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting the article in the middle of an AFD for a G5 claim was the mistake.Subject looks notable to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong opinion either way, but I feel the process left the article in a bit of a limbo "what does the community really think" situation. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're probably right. Perhaps I should have reopened the previous AFD when I restored the article—not sure what the established procedure is, or even if there is one. Ucucha 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such deletions in the middle of AFD discussions are to my knowledge not normal. Lets press on with what we have. As I know G5 deletions are very rare and not a good idea for articles that are not clear vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that was the problem. One particular user G5-tagged very enthusiastically, and closed open AFDs. I'm sure they thought it was for the best. (But then the tagged articles did actually get deleted by some admin.) Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Close call, but the individual is clearly not notable per WP:N. The whole recess appointment thing is WP:BLP1E. It's very unlikely that we could actually fill an article with notable information about this person. This would be a permastub article that would only serve as a glorified resume. SnottyWong ^speak 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a distinguished engineer. For example, Bloomberg says "He has been named a Kauffman Fellow – Class 11 and has received the inaugural 2002 Wisconsin Distinguished Young Alumni Award and was the 2003 Outstanding Engineering Alumni Awardee from Northeastern University.". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The alumni awards are not that big a contribution to notability. Kauffman Fellowship is slightly more (awarded by Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation), but I find no GNews coverage of the Fellowship apart from mentions in press release-type things about people who had one. As with the previous AFD, I'm neutral; to !vote keep I'd have to see something better than the current sourcing, which is BLP1E sources relating to his appointment plus the Wisconsin Tech News. Rd232 ^talk 11:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- meets WP:N, and the nom seems to be a retaliatory strike in furtherance of a dispute between editors. Tsk. Minor4th 07:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. There is no dispute between me and either the account which created the article or the banned user the account was a sock of. There is, however, a difference of opinion between me and Minor4th on matters of climate change. Rd232 ^talk 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've said several times that I'm now neutral on keep/delete on this one. Re-nomination was because the previous AFD was cut short and the article CSD#G5 speedy deleted, and then restored, requiring a conclusion of the community discussion on the merits of the article. Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a search of reliable sources and found a few dozen about this subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool - would you stick them in the article or at least the talk page please? (The ones that aren't about his appointment particularly, since that's BLP1E territory and well-enough covered.) Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How I wish I could! Unfortunately, I can't.[74] But I can e-mail you the link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right... I had a look at your email, I didn't see anything absolutely essential to add. Never mind, eh. Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially on the basis of the detailed discussion in the WSJ column [75] This does not appear to have been a routine appointment. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 7 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration - A pillar of Organizational Behaviour[edit]

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the WP:OR issue, I just referred to the Organisational Behaviour textbook that I still have from my MA (currently selling it online if anyone wants it) and Collaboration gets a four-line paragraph on page 238. Hardly a "pillar" of the subject! -- role^player 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Original research, how-to guide, essayish style, and likely meant to sell something: Not only is the "two-way street" a good idea on a philosophical level, but technology-enabled collaboration is simply making it an imperative. Yet it is clear that we are still in the midst of making this fundamental shift in our ways of thinking and working together--we haven't quite made it yet. Business collaboration is where people assist and co-operate with colleagues and other contacts to further a particular aspect of the business that they share. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, OR. Hairhorn (talk) 11:20, 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 redirect to List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama. The consensus is to delete; I am creating a redirect as a possible search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009[edit]

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

WP:NTEMP Speeches are not notable enough for an article simply b/c they are made by the President, which seem to be user's rationale: [76] Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the sentiments expressed at WP:MILL. Gigs (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not really sure how to vote on this one. There are other articles on Obama speeches, as evidenced by Category:Speeches by Barack Obama. Clearly, not every speech the guy gives needs an article. So, the question is, is this a run-of-the-mill speech, or was it an important enough speech to require an article? The creator of the article brings up some valid (yet unsourced) opinions on the talk page. This is a tough one. SnottyWong ^gab 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a news outlet and lack of notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without a reaction/reception section this article does not appear notable. Nergaal (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This speech is generally considered an historic speech.[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] I agree that a reception section is sorely missing, but from these sources it is clear enough that the speech was not a "run of the mill" speech. It is also quite doable, for an editor interested in the topic, to write a reception section; there is no lack of sources.[100] --Lambiam 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just glancing through that list of sources I see many passing mentions of the speech (a la CNN Edition, dailytimes.com, allafrica, asiantribune), op-eds, and things that would generally be expected for a speech given by the President of the United States. It's covered by the news, life goes on, it should probably get mentioned in his bio, but it doesn't need a whole article. As for the g-news search, considering how many of those sources may be blogs, more passing mentions of the speech, and/or not even about the speech, you really need something more concrete. Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are meant to support my claim that the speech is generally considered an historic speech. A speech that is widely qualified as an historic speech by reliable sources – even while only mentioning it in passing – is, evidently, not a "run of the mill" speech. The hundreds of news articles listed by the Google search of the last link are from the two months following the speech; they are generally concerned with covering the speech itself and reactions to it. --Lambiam 20:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with simply pointing to g-news and saying "look hits" is that, when you sift through them, they don't always support what you have said. Many of them mention the fact that he spoke, but go on to cover the conference in more detail, rather than dwell on his speech. Again, his speech is noteworthy, but not really enough for its own article. I think nice paragraph in his bio would suffice. Soxwon (talk) 13:59, 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. no arguments for deletion aside for the nom - anyone can discuss about a rename in the talk page of the article JForget 00:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status class[edit]

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

User Piotrus objected to my PROD, but this user was the original creator of this article. I am taking this article to AfD because the subject is NOT NOTABLE.

It's based on Max Weber's "formula", of which I have looked for and found no references. A different article, Social Class, IS notable, since it is based on multiple references from a number of different people.

Since this article is based on the views of only ONE person, I would also say that this article counts as ADVERTISING.

This has been a stub for over 6 years, and still has no references. Once again, I have looked for references and found none. It is NOT notable. Beeshoney (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Piotrus' reason for removing my PROD - "different from social class" - is completely ambiguous as well. Beeshoney (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename. My comment on social class was a result of nominator's prod comment ("is covered in other "social class" article"). Social class needs cleanup, and some status material should be moved from it to this article. Status class is a sociological term, used in many works (just do a search on Google Print). That said, status group currently redirects to status class, yet it appears a more popular term for the same concept; I'd suggest renaming, pending comments from other sociologists, hopefully to come here. PS. Advertising? Seriously? Lol. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename. I think a rename to status group would clear this up best as it's the most popular term for the concept of Stand (Weber's original German term). There's a whole ton of serious academic references available. Weber's work on status groups forms the backbone for large parts of 20th century sociology, and much beyond. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:08, 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim denley[edit]

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

Contested BLP PROD. Unreferenced autobiography of Mijyelned (talk · contribs) (read user name backwards). Blatant violation of WP:COI; the article even reads like an autobiography. role^player 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Straightforward nn-autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability, and while searching for notability, I found that large chunks of this article are copy/paste jobs from other websites (for example [101]) so there's copyright questions as well. Livitup (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. Author should not have removed the PROD-BLP tag, since no reference sources have been added. --DAJF (talk) 23:56, 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Adarna[edit]

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

Non notable person, also advertising. May have NPOV problems as well. Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOTADVERTISING Acather96 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N --Hamburger Time (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for entertainers. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to find enough reliable sources other than her being in a magazine cover. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not many sources, seems like an ad Vartanza (talk) 06:45, 5 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outlet Property Services[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. Unable to find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. An real estate brokerage firm, one of thousands: The company provides an internet ‘matching’ service listing properties throughout the UK as well as the personal profiles of all registered home seekers. Outlet also deals in sales, commercial properties, property management, mortgages, short lets and holiday lets and holiday bookings. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 6 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clumping Up[edit]

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

Too little context to actually identify the subject of the article. I suspect it's nonsense because I've been unable to find any use of the term in any sort of physics-related context. Pichpich (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original essay. Another use: Clumping up is what happens when a cat pisses in a litterbox. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article is about the notable, encyclopedic topic of vortex merger that doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article. That said, I don't think there is anything worth saving in this article. -Atmoz (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vortex merger would make a fine article. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 19:35, 6 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 Userfy — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalajara: The Experience[edit]

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

Prod contested on the grounds that this movie is available for purchase. However, it never got a reliable critic's attention and therefore fails our inclusion guidelines for movies. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this film fails WP:NF in every way.--90.0.130.131 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This film has 5 star customer ratings on two websites seen at the films Amazon page and at its Lulu page. I think you all should give it a break. -- 75.170.60.176 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's based on two unidentified Amazon customers. Way short of our guidelines for source reliability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that this page is a good contribution to Wikipedia. If someone sees this film for sale and wants to know about it, it is great to have on here. I understand that this "needs" a reliable critic's attention, but I strongly disagree. All customer ratings on the sites listed by 75.170.60.176 are the best rating applicable. I believe the rules should bend a little for this article. BurnzBoy² _{blah blah blah} 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON without prejudice toward recreation if/when this recent film gets coverage to meet WP:NF. I would not be adverse to a userfication to author User:Burnzboy2 in the meanwhile with our thanks, as the article does indeed need work to be brought into line with guideline, and the author can do this in a workspace and seek input and advice from seasoned contributors, prior to any possible return to mainspace. And to Burnzboy2, with respects, please review requiremets at WP:NF and WP:GNG to see that customer ratings on Amazon or a self-published article at Lulu are simply not enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Userfication - I will just move this to a subpage of my user page until it meets the requirements. Thank you for all your help. BurnzBoy²_{blah blah blah} 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... I see it at User:Burnzboy2/Guadalajara. Upon the closing of this discussion, the edit history will be moved there if requested. And in the meanwhile, take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your help getting this article straightened out everyone. BurnzBoy²_{blah blah blah} 03:16, 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 No consensus, default to keep. Improvements and sourcing were added to the article after it was nominated, and discussion of a different name can be continued on the talk page. Mandsford 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manama incident[edit]

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

This is simply an article on an event of 5 days ago, concerning ad "arrest of at least one female protester" in Bahrain. It thus fails WP:NOTNEWS.

I suggested a merger to some article on Bahrain politics or human rights - that's being resisted, but I'm not even sure it merits that. The incident seems to be part of wide recent unrest, but we don't even have a general article on the unrest. Now, perhaps this may become bigger later, but for now it is simply a news story. Scott Mac 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator is currently working on expanding it. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I don't think he can change the fact it is a 5 day old news story, though.--Scott Mac 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this can be expanded to cover the recent unrest, with reliable sources, it might make a valid article (though it might then need moving to a more appropriate title). For the moment I'd prefer to give the author a little more time to see if he can make a more encyclopedic article of it - given that he now knows it's here at AfD and might be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- If he wants to tell us where he's going with this, I can consider withdrawing this. But I don't see it at the moment.--Scott Mac 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Scott Mac. Why do I need to tell you where I'm going with it? Timothymarskell (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supertouch (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the midst of expanding it today. Should get a good page out of it. Timothymarskell (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who started this AfD seems to have announced his wiki-retirement immediately subsequent to doing so. This seems very odd. Also, I don't mind renaming this article -- it's just that the NY Times article is the best place to start. Timothymarskell (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scott Mac decided on retirement for reasons not related to you, the Manama incident article, or this AFD. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominators analysis and WP:NOTNEWS. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, with a possibility of Keep and Rename if wider notability can be shown - but rescind my earlier comment, as the duration of this AfD should be plenty of time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) (Changed my mind again - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Boing! said Zebedee. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and author is indef'd so his keep !vote is invalid (although it wasn't policy-based anyway). —fetch ·comms 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything in WP:NOTNEWS that seems to apply to this article; will the editors opining for delete on that basis please clarify? I also think the blocked editor argument is most flimsy in this case, since Marskell is not blocked; this appears to be a personal AFD rather than policy-based, and I'd appreciate more reasoned delete rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:NOTNEWS clause that I think applies is "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - I see nothing to suggest that this one event is or will be of enduring notability, but if you disagree with that, please feel free to add a "Keep" !vote. My initial comment (see above) was that as the author was still working on it, then we should not be too hasty to delete it under WP:NOTNEWS, and give them time to make it more than a single-event news story - but the duration of this AfD should be enough to see if that looks likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I have not actually been blocked. (Or "in-def'd" -- that's an impossibility).

I was de-sysopped, which is fine. Unfortunately, because Wikimedia decided to also block User:timothymarskell I can't log in under an account that will be recognizable to anyone. Sandy, if you would like to take time to help a friend, ask around about why the Timothymarskell account is blocked. I violated no policies with that account.

As for deleting this, I'll simply recreate it. It is now more than nine days since the incident occurred and this has received attention from multiple news organizations.

It's actually good that new editors are commenting even if they don't understand policy. This brings google hits to the page and will perhaps aid in the release of the woman detained without cause. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.86.98 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk, I suspect the NOTNEWS issue can be resolved by looking at the broader human rights issues, mentioned in several sources, and not yet fully explored here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good - I've modified my !vote above, and will be happy to change it if broader notability can be shown. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator's rationale, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Please also note, it appears zero WP:RS sources are referring to this as "Manama incident". -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the article name is hindering the search for sources. I have finally found the time to locate sources (Fakhria al-Singace mentioned in this article is the sister); both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have picked up this issue.

so searching on Abdul Jalil al-Singaci lends many more sources:

http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Abdul+Jalil+al-Singace+Bahrain

and there is a merge proposal at Human rights in Bahrain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press gag order is likely hindering reporting, so more time may be needed for additional sources to appear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The unrest in Bahrain appears to be significant enough for an article, with Amnesty International involved in objecting to the arrests, and the New York Times covering it. The article should be moved to something like August 2010 Bahrain unrest, or possibly to a bio of Abdul Jalil Al-Singace, the opposition leader whose sister was arrested in the mall. The lead would have to be rewritten, but it could otherwise be kept roughly as it is for later expansion. I don't want to try moving the title now, because the last time I did that at AfD I messed up the templates. Another option is to merge it as a subsection of Human rights in Bahrain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources I listed above, and Slim's work on the article, the topic is more than "simply an article on an event of 5 days ago", and I agree it's significant enough for an article and beyond a mere one-time news event. Whether the article might be re-named is to be determined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Not sure what it should be renamed to, but with the extra work done and the references supplied, it's becoming apparent that this is bigger than just the one specific incident, and more than just a passing news story. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Article has expanded from the 3 sentence stub it was when nominated and now has 8 RS sources. The rename discussion might be carried on the article talk, rather than here. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atrium Network[edit]

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

Page has existed for over a year, and yet has never had more than one reference (which is behind a paywall so hard to verify, and doesn't sound promising). Google search turns up only press releases and company's own sites. News search turns up the same thing. Thus, the article does not verify that the company meets either general notability guidelines or company notability guidelines, nor is there any indication that it is verifiable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we have updated the article and adding the biographies - will add more references when I get a chance. We have also created one in the French version. Tried to keep the article neutral and factual, so no overt selling/advertising. More about general information and awareness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Despeck (talk • contribs) 31 August 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate the company is notable, so adding to the biographies won't help. A search of Google and Google News finds only press releases and other self-referential material. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 6 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou Shalt Not...[edit]

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

Delete all - no independent reliable sources establish the individual notability of these episodes. Fail WP:GNG and since some of them are nothing but extended plot summaries they fail WP:PLOT as well. PRODs disputed and in one case article restored following PROD deletion by extreme inclusionist who does not understand that every obscure episode title from every TV series that ever existed doesn't require a redirect since if someone should happen to search for the eptitle they will land on the ep list even without the obscure redirect. No sourced information in any of the articles so there is nothing to merge. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. These articles are completely unnecessary and the episodes are clearly not notable enough for their own individual articles. The individual episodes should be collected and discussed together at the season and/or show page, per WP:EPISODE. Looks like most (if not all) of these articles are copy/pastes from Quantum Wiki. SnottyWong ^express 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I investigated the copying and tagged some of the articles for copyvio, CSD G12. More information is available on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the CSD G12 tagged articles were deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Quantum Leap episodes per WP:ATD, as PROD decliner. Note that I suggested the nominator simply redirect or merge the articles himself, but he has chosen not to do so, contra WP:EPISODE arguing for direct deletion instead. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE is disputed and not part of any WP policy or guideline. None of this information is sourced and much of it is trivial and all episodes are already covered in sufficient detail in the list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EPISODE is created by people who actually work in and improve articles in this space. Is there any particular reason you don't choose to follow consensus and collaborative solutions? Unsourced != unsourceable, and AfD is not for cleanup. And finally, what is your reason for not simply redirecting the articles to the list? Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not make it either a policy or a guideline, as it is disputed. Thank you, though, for the implication that I don't work to improve articles. I mean I've only worked on a few hundred articles over the last few months and created a couple dozen from scratch, including two for episodes of television series that are actually sourced and notable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all relevant information to List of Quantum Leap episodes. I'm with Jclemens on this one. Airplaneman ✈ 04:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if there is indeed nothing to merge (as Flatscan says below), I say redirect all to the list. I see some have been deleted under WP:CSD#G12, so if the decision is to merge the articles, I will go ahead and recreate those as redirects. Airplaneman ✈ 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've given this some more thought, and agree with Flatscan that these titles are not ones to be typed into the search box. Any internal links can point directly to the list. I don't think the redirects are needed, so delete all. Airplaneman ✈ 04:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Should have been the first move anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, minimal usable content to merge and low-value redirect titles. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The infoboxes either duplicate information in the list or would be more easily added for all episodes from a source like the Internet Movie Database.
- The Music sections added by User:Lazried57 are not appropriate to merge into the list, and I can't think of anywhere to use them.
- All except "Thou Shalt Not..." were originally copied from List of Quantum Leap episodes. See the talk page for analysis. If not deleted, they have to be attributed per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (I'll handle this if necessary).
- The "Thou Shalt Not..." episode summary is shorter than its corresponding list entry.
  Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Jclemens and Airplaneman to expand on their merge all recommendations. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A review of the merge target will show that the plot summaries for the articles under discussion are quite a bit more perfunctory than those of existing list entries which are not bluelinked, as Flatscan has already noted above. I would expect that an editor can appropriately decide which of the content to merge to provide a harmonious and license-honoring integration of the content. "Merge" does not necessarily mean "merge everything". Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jclemens is correct that the list entries have been reduced for episodes with separate articles. Since I found a revision prior to the articles' creations, I will restore the longer entries for any deleted articles, starting with those that were CSD'd. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having reviewed the page history, it seems that most episodes, including the five G12'd ones, were pretty much unchanged August 2009–August 2010. A large reduction and reformatting was done by User:Xeworlebi (who appears to be an experienced list editor) in the past few days. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restating my original comment: I've looked at the five remaining articles and think that all of their content is 1) already present in the list article or its recent history; 2) minor infobox data available directly from sources, for all episodes; or 3) not appropriate for the list article. Clarifying request: please point out specific pieces of content as counterexamples that should be merged, rather than merely asserting that they exist. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 5 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 redirect all to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaving[edit]

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

Delete all - a collection of non-notable television episodes. All lack independent reliable sources that establish the notability of the individual episodes. PRODs removed by extreme inclusionist editor who does not understand that not every single title of every single episode of every single TV show ever requires a redirect. There is no sourced information to merge and even if someone should search for one of these obscure titles they will arrive at the existing episode list so there is no need to merge or redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes pursuant to the guidelines of WP:EPISODES. No need to bring this to AfD as a merge could be done without discussion. Inniverse (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I oppose the idea of grouping all these AfD's into a single discussion. Each article should be argued on its own merits as to whether it should be kept or merged (deletion is not an option per the guidelines). Inniverse (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is certainly an option. No reasonable interpretation of any relevant guideline could logically lead to the conclusion that deletion is not an option. Subjects for which there are no independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject should be deleted per WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. No reliable sources exist to establish notability of each individual episode per WP:GNG. These article already appear at List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes, so there is no point in merging. SnottyWong ^prattle 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all While Snottywong is technically correct, I note that the bluelinked articles at List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes have shorter and more perfunctory plot summaries, suggesting that these may originally have been WP:SS breakouts. Thus, I prefer a merge with no prejudice against creating full breakout articles for episodes sourced appropriately. Oh, and I was PROD decliner on many (all?) of these. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes as possible search terms. -Atmoz (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the episode list to preserve the content, it is possible that relevant sources exist. Someone another 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all or Delete wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE Dwanyewest (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the history of these episode articles, it appears that their original versions contain detailed plot summaries too long to have been split from the list. Antenna (Aqua Teen Hunger Force) is the only possibility, and its summary differs from its entry in the list. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 6 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venturefondet[edit]

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

WP:Corp (notability). A prod placed on August 18 should have already expired was contested after 13 days. No assertion of notability is made through size or importance. The article has remained a single paragraph stub for three years and does not include any helpful references. No mentions in Google news seems unlikely to establish notability |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.
Delete. An utterly unremarkable fund: venture capital government enterprise.... It has no operations of its own and is managed by its board. The company is in a liquidation phase. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference #1 in the article goes to the wrong place; reference 2 is accurate but this provides more information and substantiates the existing article. This shows "NOK 75 million as a result of the write-down of equity in Venturefondet AS." (Both English.) I see some other sources on investments made by the fund when it was operating, and here is a 3-page letter by the chairman that likely provides good data (Norwegian, pdf). I think this article could have usefully been created with more info in it. But the story's over and I don't see any assertions of great importance that would justify keeping it. The Norwegian article appears to have been deleted. Unless I'm missing something that makes it notable under the specific applicable criteria - something can of course have been notable in the past but now no longer be in existence - IMO this doesn't merit keeping. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 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, but consider merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner TV[edit]

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

No references at all and little information. Fails WP:GNG. The creator, User:HighStranger, seems to have some sort of COI if you see the userpage. Superchrome (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, this book (p. 170 - 174) has two chapters called Must-See Stoner TV and A Brief History of Classic Stoner TV. Also other search (basic G-Search and G-News Archive search) reveals that the term is often used to describe TV series that revolve around the use of marijuana. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence is needed in the article. Superchrome (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and literature added, article wikified, please check it again. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a widely-used term, but a redirect to Stoner film with a mention of Weeds may be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as nom - I have looked at the article after the references were added and I will go for snow keep as there is no longer a reason to delete, although I do think a redirect to Stoner film may be appropriate here. Superchrome (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is not that big, would a full blown merge to Stoner film work? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 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 Withdrawn. I will put the merge tag proposal instead JForget 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries[edit]

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

I don't think it's a useful list, as we already have a very similar one: List of urban areas in the Nordic countries - so either Delete or Merge this to List of urban areas in the Nordic countries. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of urban areas in the Nordic countries. Spatulli (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reason given for deletion. Since when "I don't think it's an useful list" is a deletion rationale? List of urban areas in the Nordic countries contains only population information, while this one contains both population, area and density information, so if anything it's the latter which needs merging here. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to open a merge discussion, not a deletion duscussion, but that simply doesn't exist. But I guess that you agree with me that these two lists should be merged into one? :) Spatulli (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This seems an odd and ORish way to present such a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. An "urban area" and a "metropolitan area" are the same thing, as far as I know. Both articles have useful information that needs to be included in a single article. See Help:Merging#Proposing a merger for instructions on how to set up a proper merge discussion on the talk page of the article, which is the appropriate location for a merge discussion. SnottyWong ^chat 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess an AfD wasn't the proper thing to do - as my intention was to propose a merger, not necessarily a deletion. I'm withdrawing, sorry for the mess. Spatulli (talk) 19:37, 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 deleted as G11 Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-Flo[edit]

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

BLP with only primary sources. Don't see outside notability nor sufficient indications even in the article. Lots of primary sources. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Could also be speedy deleted for being a blatant advertisement. Actual quote: "This new Cd is one that you must add to your Cd collection" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedy tagged this as spam. Absolutely no attempt at establishing outside notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV-drenched non-notability. "God has also used J-Flo to bring hundreds back to Christ by influencing young people to renounce their live of sin and purse Christ." .......awwww, that's not notable, they've been pursing Christ for generations now... Carrite (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per g11 at WP:CSD, "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Having read the article, I very much believe that this article qualifies under both points. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 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) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web management system[edit]

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

WP:SOAP Not a currently valid technical term, this page is currently squatted on by a minor proprietary product. Sethop (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sneaky spam. After deletion, redirect to Web content management system. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep. Sneaky spam indeed. Concur with the redirect suggestion to Web content management system. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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 ((db-a1)) by User:JamesBWatson. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

201008[edit]

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

non-notable subject Xmbx (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete According to G-translator, this article is a personal essay + someone's diary/schedule. The article is entirely unencyclopedic, moreover in Korean. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's personal agenda. Speedy criterion A1 may apply. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personal diary. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A1. -- role^player 23:27, 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) 00:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New York City cab stabbing[edit]

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

Does this really pass notability guidelines for inclusion?! I mean, in NYC, there are dozens of foreign cab drivers, and dozens of stabbings every day... ANowlin ^talk 06:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe include it somewhere in the Park51 controversy. This was a stabbing and although the media is in a swarm to speculate about it, I don't think it meets notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It might be worth a line or two in the Park51 article but it's otherwise just a random violent crime by a drunk that only made headlines because of the media firestorm around that community center project. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT as the crime is unlikely to have any notable lasting effects. Claritas § 10:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:NOTNEWS. Has already been speedied under other titles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly failing notability and notnews guidelines. Thorncrag 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of cab stabbings every year around the world, let alone NYC; this one is no more notable than any of them. Clearly this fails NOTNEWS. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. -- L'ecrivant (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above and WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Park51. Yes, dozens of New York cabbies get stabbed every year, but how many get to meet the mayor afterwards, and raise comments from the governor of New York and the Anti-Defamation League? And raise over $30,000 in donations from the public?[102] This is a significant story, which should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia; I don't mind if it's as a sub-section of the Park51 article, but that one is getting rather long. (It would be relevant, as this attack has been linked to that project in reliable sources:[103]).Robofish (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the sources and after events you mentioned, it's still not notable per WP:VICTIM.4meter4 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this story was also recently featured on The Colbert Report([104]), which may not be a reliable source but is arguably an indicator of notability. Robofish (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not news. Diego Grez (talk) 16:00, 5 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 all. except for Morrill County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska) Courcelles 02:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbury Police Department (Nebraska)[edit]

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska), the same user has created this and a number of stubs on various Law enforcement bodies in Nebraska which will almost certainly just remain Wikipedia:Permastub, individually these organisations are not notable and with only directory style information should be deleted :

I am also nominating :

I am going to nominate Friend Police Department (Nebraska) as a separate AfD as it makes a claim for significance (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Police Department (Nebraska)). Codf1977 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe merge into a Law enforcement in Nebraska article that is accompanied with more encyclopedic information. --NortyNort (Holla) 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:NOTDIR. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per the other discussions on this precise topic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, as none of them includes any remotely enyclopedic content whatsoever. I really can't imagine what the author was thinking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to the respective article of the area (county, municipality, census-defined area) it serves. The content is perfectly fine and appropriate for those jurisdiction articles per WP:NNC, but I do not see a need for individual articles for these departments. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and WP:NOTDIR. Clearly not notable enough for their own articles. If these get deleted, the related category (Category:Law enforcement agencies of Nebraska) will probably need to go as well. There does not appear to be much information in these articles to merge anywhere. The bunch of articles I looked at basically consist of a single sentence which asserts that the police department exists. "The XYZ Police Department is a municipal police agency operating in Nebraska." How are you going to merge that into the city/municipality article? Thanks to the nominator for taking the (significant amount of) time to clean up WP. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each I tend to agree with User:Jclemens. They should have been built in a better place and when they could stand as their own Article, then be spun out. (although I do conceed that during a merge ... there may be nothing to merge so the the same effect as a delete/redir ) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Morrill County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska). I picked this one at random to see if it had potential to be more than a stub. I was surprised. If you are voting delete/merge see if you can de-stub another. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Heh! That's nothing. I've just found a history professor who has decided to study Lincoln County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska) (AfD discussion) and the other law enforcers in Lincoln County in depth. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge each User:Rich Farmbrough just made this difficult by improving Wikipedia (Hey!). Morrill County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska) is a perfectly fine standalone article but could also be merged into the county article. I don't know if the others have anything more than an external link (like the couple I looked at) but even that should probably be merged into the corresponding county article as opposed to deleted and the resulting redirects wouldn't be ridiculous. Sounds like a job for a bot? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (addendum: ....except for Morrill County) and no merge. There is no inherent notability for police and sheriff's departments. Most, if not all of these, were created in one evening [105], one after another, and then abandoned; I have no reason to believe that the person who produced all of these articles will assist in the task of merging the content of each of these articles to the respective county, city or town pages. If anything, I think that it simply encourages more mass creation of articles. Mandsford 02:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale appears to be based upon not even reading the discussion immediately above where you wrote it, let alone the edit history of the article mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The article mentioned"? There are eighty more of these being discussed besides the one about the Morrill County Sheriff's Office. I think it's great that you've found someone who wants to try to develop articles about two of the agencies in the last batch, but the idea that all of these should be kept while the search goes on doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Regardless of whether one looks at this as disruptive, or as an opportunity to learn more about a particular county sheriff in Nebraska in the course of "de-stubbing", no policy reason has been advanced to show a reason for keeping stubs about something that doesn't meet our notability guidelines. The fact is, there is no subject-specific notability guideline that presumes that a police department or a sheriff's department is presumed notable. Mandsford 12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Rich Farmbrough has, essentially from scratch, written an actual article about the sheriff's department of Morrill County, Nebraska, that one is not a stub, and should not be judged in the same manner as 80 stubs that make no assertion of notability. I've amended my !vote accordingly. Mandsford 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I agree with Mandsford and think that Morrill County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska) should not be deleted now. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 6 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cheong[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article claims the individual is the winner of numerous awards, but there is no evidence in article or in Google to support claim. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The claims about awards are either unverifiable or incorrect - the winner in the category best social/political documentary (Yorktown Film Festival, 2008) was the film Inside Time, and the cinematographer was Jay Ferguson, not Barry Cheong. The rest of the article is a curriculum vitae. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything in a search or in the article denoting notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 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 speedily deleted by Stehen (talk as G10. Non-admin closure on an iPhone. みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Van Paasschen[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This article appears to be mocking the subject, a local television news reporter, by making grandiose-sounding claims about him. It looks more like an attack page than a page asserting his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G10. Attack page designed to disparage subject. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:34, 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Perk[edit]

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

Creator is username blocked at the moment, possible COI. Created two pages, this one and the company this individual apparently founded. A google news search reveals nothing obvious on the first page except for a Dutch page that references " Hans Perk, program manager for sustainable cocoa and tea development." I don't think it's the same person. Best reference here is the Variety article, but I don't see it as enough in this context. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Variety article plainly doesn't pass the "non-trivial" component of the notability guidelines. No additional evidence of notability appears to exist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A. Film A/S. --Lambiam 22:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it sounds like advertising. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:30, 6 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zygmunt kubasiak[edit]

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

My apologies to the creator, but this person does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards--no references are included, and I cannot find any in the usual ways (Google News and Books). Drmies (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject translated several books and made several paitings. That's the only claim in the article verifiable by secondary sources. It isn't enough to meet the notability requirements. The article doesn't explain why are his works notable and important. Btw, the paintings are not bad, a nice mixture of cubism and naïve art. Kubasiak is a skilled illustrator. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete I've been following "be bold" and "break the rules" Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not the Encyclopaedia in a traditional sense. May be a special appendix for unknowns should be opened, to protect hosts of poets, artists and other modest contributors to the tank of global civilisation. Anyway, I am strongly convinced that the subject's art is worth noticing,blending modern trends with ancient and ethnic traditions in a very individual way (labeling him as illustrator is biased), but as he is an extremely reclusive person he'll never in his life produce enough "notability" to be included in any public storage of data.User:tnumgyz13:30,31 August 2010

I'm afraid it is impossible to open an "appendix for unknowns" here. You are right, Wiki is not an encyclopaedia in a traditional sense, however, it must have firmly formulated rules to prevent its turning into another MySpace or Facebook. Verifiability and notability are among the most important rules here and in my opinion your subject doesn't meet them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, in case of a visual artist the utmost proof of verifiability is the body of their own work. No books, articles or other media can replace it. Only the opinions of the value of their art can differ. The article is then verifiable, since such artist exists and his work is available to be seen by anybody who is willing to. What else can be expected. As for notability the rule goes: "Article topics must be notable, or worthy of notice. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance..." user:tnumgyz14:19, 31 August 2010

You are confusing existence with notability. "...the utmost proof of verifiability is the body of their own work" is not a well-formed sentence, since verifiability itself is proof. What matters is that the importance of a given artist and their work can be verifiably established using reliable sources--that's the rules on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am not interested in keeping this article in Wikipedia by all means but in the arguments of my opponents."You are confusing existence with notability". Clearly biased opinion. The article concerns an artist who created a large body of work and not just a man who merely "exists". I'd like to see more substance in criticism, like why the work of that artist is not "worthy of notice". Until now the user confuses notability with popularity. Then the question of reliable sources. In case of a writer the ultimate source are his books, in case of an artist his artwork. I'm not going to claim that my subject is famous and pile references to press coverage, Tv programmes and lexicon entries.This kind of verifiability has for an artist secondary importance. My next opponent must be very busy. "Non-notable artist".And that's all? Shouldn't we support our subjective views with some arguments? User:Tnumgyz 12:50 1 Sept. 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I can assure you that I've created a "large body of artwork" (songs, poems, performances etc.), but I'm still not notable per Wikipedia requirements. Please read the requirements before introducing your theories. For Wikipedia, the press coverage and lexicon entries (in other words the coverage published by secondary sources) is of primary value. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let me rephrase, then: "You are confusing the existence of a possibly large body of work with the notability of said body of work." The only reason we have to assume that the claims in the article are true and that the artist is relevant, given the lack of secondary sources, is your say-so, and that is not how Wikipedia works.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. You say, "In case of a writer the ultimate source are his books, in case of an artist his artwork." Not so. Those are primary sources. Encyclopedias use secondary sources. No secondary sources, no notability--that's the rule here. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tnumgyz, this has been already linked to above, but in case you haven't clicked on it, I enourage you to read Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It clearly explains what kind of sources are acceptable in Wikipedia for establishing a subject's notability and for writing the article itself. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that writing an article about yourself is very strongly frowned upon. Reyk _YO! 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I see your point guys. Secondary sources are decisive. OK. (-: User: Tnumgyz —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC). 3 Sept.2010[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Film L.A., Inc.[edit]

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

Creator is username blocked at the moment, possible COI. Created two pages, this one and the company's creator, Hans Perk. A google news search reveals nothing obvious on the first page, using a number of name permutations. Nothing in the article to indicate notability or reference it either. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of the subject's notability. Delete per nom. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claims are on the afilmla.com website, which trace back to the Denmark company. Perhaps this is a US office of the main firm? In any case, it hardly warrants mention on A. Film A/S, let alone a page of its own. tedder (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to A. Film A/S. (One may wonder whether that target is notable, but that is another discussion that should be held on its own merits.) On its website, A. Film L.A., Inc. identifies itself as "the U.S. subsidiary of A. Film A/S, Denmark"[106] – which on its website lists the L.A. company under "offices". Presumably, it is a legal entity established under California law that is largely or wholly owned by the Danish A. Film A/S. This news item calls it a "permanent U.S. presence" of A. Film. All together there is not enough for an article that can stand on its own. --Lambiam 21:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we should redirect if there is no mention of the redirect in the target article. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:31, 6 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson (Countdown)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:V. There were two previous AfDs, consensus keep, both in 2007, both of which focused on questions of notability but not verifiability. I do not challenge the previous consensus on notability, my only reason for coming here is to discuss the verifiability concern.

Nothing I can find (but suggestions welcome) via Gnews/Gbooks (ignore the Books LLC wikimirror). Gweb, after excluding mirrors and references to other people seems to come down to a few links at thecountdownpage.com (see ELs) and ukgameshows.co.uk (e.g., http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Countdown) The former is a solo effort, the latter is a wiki-based system [107] without, I surmise, the sort of editorial oversight necessary for WP:RS.

But a couple reliable sources and I'd be happy to retract the nom, of course. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Decker's analysis of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't have created this if I had known Wikipedia policy as well as I know it now. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just ran a search the Channel 4 website, and looked at the Countdown part of the same, and found nothing at all related either to this individual, or to the record that the article claims that he holds. -- role^player 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 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 deleted by Stephen. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam M. Snow[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Article created by an SPA. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also should be included: the redirect at Adam M. Snow - Poet. LadyofShalott 04:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits show that the SPA intends to showcase this poet ("Welcome!"). Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (autobiographical?) promotional article about a poet with no evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 04:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not a published poet or notable in any other way. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete, he is a real poet and he has such an amazing talent. Animazing88 — Animazing88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:ILIKEIT holds no weight in a deletion discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is Snowtheman88 (talk · contribs), who created the article. Note the 88. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Animazing88 (talk · contribs) attempted to remove the other delete votes. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete he deserves this for all he's been through. Spiderbeast91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderbeast91 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 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. Text is copyvio from the subject's blog (http://andiandandy.blogspot.com). Sandstein 05:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Smith (model)[edit]

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

Unsure if this is a semi-hoax or what. There does seem to be a fashion model by that name. However, article claims he was a full-time tennis pro who "toured the circuit and obtained significant Australian and world rankings" and I can find no record of that. Other claims to fame are unreferenced and in any case too minor to denote notability. QTube is a GLBT website which doesn't have a WP article. A search on QTube found no-one by the name of Andy or Andrew Smith. –Moondyne 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article appears to be based on Cruz, Marinel (10 July 2009), "From laid-back to fast-track living", Philippine Daily Inquirer. Some relevant quotes: "He toured the circuit and obtained significant Australian and world rankings until he suffered an injury." "While on vacation in Manila in 2007 he was spotted by a talent scout on the noontime game show "Eat ... Bulaga!" He soon became a commercial model and bagged a prestigious bikini summit title." "Andy, 24, host of the magazine show "QTube" on QTV 11." This article is about him. There is also "Andi meets Andy", Manila Bulletin, 23 July 2009 about Andy and his co-host Andi. "Andi and Andy host Qtube, a 30-minute magazine show on Q Channel 11 (airing Thursdays at 10:15 p.m.)" It says "He has taken home at least 150 trophies and is ranked no. 68 in Australia before he decided to quit because of a back injury." "He was spotted in the GMA noontime show "Eat Bulaga" while he was watching with his relatives, and was quickly signed on by a casting agency as model."Allan K pulled me out from the crowd and made me do the 'TakTak Mo' on stage and they made me sing,"". There is also a little in San Juan, Luis Carlo (5 June 2009), "Guys and their jeans", Philippine Daily Inquirer including "He's now part of GMA's noontime show "Eat Bulaga." He also won the Mossimo Bikini Summit last year." Appears to be just enough for WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also just found http://andiandandy.blogspot.com/ My guess is that all of the above (basically social columns) as well as the WP page and the facebook all originate from a single source, probably a personal CV which has been generous with the truth. They are all use suspiciously similar phrasing and hence can't be thought of as reliable sources. Lets go through the claims for notability:

spotted by a talent scout on the noontime game show "Eat ... Bulaga!": its only saying he appeared on the show. He wasn't a host or a regular or anything like that. Apart from above, no RS.
He started as a professional tennis player from Adelaide ... obtained significant Australian and world rankings ...: If true, there would be a reliable tennis source for that claim. I searched and failed.
He was quickly signed on by a casting agency as model.: big deal
he bagged a prestigious bikini summit title.: ~~What title?~~ probably referring to Mossimo Bikini Summit Competition. R/Source needed
Andy now brings to Qtube his dynamic persona and his drop-dead gorgeous looks.: Really? Qtube website which doesn't even warrant a Wikipedia page. And as stated, there's nothing on the website to confirm his hosting role. Secondary/RS needed.

–Moondyne 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 above suggests more than one appearence. Still not enough to make him notable
this may be him. Ref 2 says ranked no. 68 in Australia (would that be easy to find on a reliable tennis source?). Not enough IMO for wp:athlete.
big deal
Ref 3 says Mossimo Bikini Summit last year (2008). not a major award so not notable from this.
This is QTube, magazine show on Q Channel 11 (I'm guessing part of Q (TV network)). Not the GLBT website. See refs 1+2. co-host of one show not a clear pass for wp:entertainer.
a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject The only one he might pass. Depends wether you call the coverage provided good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it is:

A BLP,
Of a person who is, if notable, only marginally notable,
And which is unreferenced,
And which contains potentially damaging claims (that he appears on a gay video site).

Case closed. It's got to go, and as soon as possible. Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 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 no consensus. Merging is certainly an option to be discussed. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Light[edit]

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

Contested speedy and contested PROD; non-notable iPhone app with limited to no coverage. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received coverage, is an example of Apple's strict control over the iOS platform. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable iPhone app with coverage in major international news media. And why are we being told that the PROD and speedy were contested? "What I tell you three times is true". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Indicating the prior procedural history of a nomination is entirely proper, and is expected of any experienced editor. I realize you're trying to make some wiki-political statement with that Colonel, but it's not in the least compelling. Shadowjams (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - No opinion either way for now. I would note that the reason the article's received coverage was because of the circumstances of its use and its creation. That suggests in some ways that it has more to do with the iPhone app store than it does with any particular app. That said, I am willing to wait for some analysis before making up my mind. From what I've searched for it isn't especially strong either way but I recognize some argument for its inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I do tend to agree with Shadowjams; while the application did do something clever, it could have flown largely under the radar (as far as major media is concerned) unless Apple had nixed it from the App Store; if that had been the case, it likely would not meet GNG. Another possibility may be merging the content into this segment of the App Store article.Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article is not, in and of itself, notable. That it serves as an example of Apple's controversially tight control over iOS applications is notable. Notability relates specifically and exclusively to the subject of an article. The subject, in this case, is not what is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~, prefer Merge somewhere. This app has received a considerable amount of coverage, but most of it is not really about the app itself, rather about the issues it raises about user modification of the iphone and Apple's app banning policies. Don't we have a List of iPhone apps article this can be merged to? Robofish (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see we did, but it was turned into a redirect. But the suggestion above of merging into App Store#Content restrictions is a good one; that gets my !vote. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 5 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 necessary modifications have now been made DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klosterbergen[edit]

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

There has never been a school with the name "Klosterbergen" in or around Anklam. The only school Klosterbergen is in Reinbek. The article refers to Johann Christoph Adelung, who went to schools in Anklam, Magdeburg, and Halle. There was indeed once a school in the old monestary Kloster Berge in Magdeburg, which was destroyed by Napoleon's troops. Johann Christoph Adelung was one of its alumni. See de:Kloster Berge. The expression "zu Klosterbergen" which can be found on Google is an older dative form for modern "in Kloster Berge". -- PhJ (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is pretty much everything wrong in this short article. Additionally to what PhJ says, Grundschule (primary school) ≠ Kindergarten (pre-primary school). --Pgallert (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and move. As PhJ states, there was a school worthy of an article, or at least a section of an article, at Kloster Berge: de:Kloster Berge#Wiederaufbau und Blüte der Klosterschule; this was the Gymnasium attended by Adelung and the article creator appears to have confused what a source said, such as this. Scads of sources mention the school; the question is whether teh article should be rewritten to be about the school with the correct title and info, or emulate German Wikipedia and cover the school only as a section of an article on the monastery, which we apparently don't have an article on.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a more suitable name. TerriersFan (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting would mean we would have to change the whole contents, except for the information on Johann Christoph Adelung, as Kloster Berge was no school and it wouldn't be useful to create an own article on the school inside the monastery of Kloster Berge. But if someone is ready to write an article on Kloster Berge now, then go on. -- PhJ (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I am honestly not sure which would be more useful to en.wikipedia - an article on the abbey/monastery (there are 2 or 3 mentions of it in existing articles and it's easy enough to translate the de.wikipedia article) or a brief article on the school, which from the short Google Books search I did, is mentioned all over the place - and the author of this article clearly thought the school was what needed an article. I'm leaning towards the latter. Thoughts? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten it (and started referencing it - found a book on the school, for starters) and moved it to Kloster Berge school.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work Yngvadottir. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:21, 6 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario navarro[edit]

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

Person not notable according to WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that Mario navarro has no significant achievements in the field of Muay Thai sport. I can't find any reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and I can't find anything to show he's notable in Muay Thai. Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 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 G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Guangzhou Baiyun Airport[edit]

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

Appears to be simply promotional, and does not seem to pass General Notability Guideline. (The subject is a hotel, not an airport) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Got rehashed press-release coverage at its opening last May, and absolutely nothing else since. Similar lack of reliable, independent coverage in Chinese: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The fact that this hotel exists may (or may not) be worth a brief mention on the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport article, but there's nothing sourced to merge. cab (call) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. Deor (talk) 04:07, 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tasneem bint Al Ghazi[edit]

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

No citations, marked since Aug 2009. No evidence of individual notability; merely being a member of a very large royal family does not establish sufficient notability for a separate entry. OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a close successor to the throne, in a small country. There's a limit to royals and she is outside it. If there was a claim that she'd done anything notable, that'd be different. Also, no refs. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 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) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Thank Yous[edit]

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

Mixtapes are generally not considered notable. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Badly formatted. No claim made for notability. No external sources. LK (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Pretty major presence, but the release needs some independent verifiable reference. My opinion floats on that determination. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Mixtapes are generally not notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when do mixtapes get their own articles? Even some albums aren't notable enough, and this mixtape certainly doesn't rise to the level of notability required. Kill it now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:09, 6 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. JForget 00:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple (Lahore)[edit]

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

Prod removed almost immediately with no changes made to article content to address issues. Notability still not established for building. The article is supposed to be about the building, but talks almost exclusively about the state of Freemasonry in Pakistan since 1972, and about one Lodge (and not necessarily the only Lodge) that met in the building. A Lodge is not the building it meets in, and the building does not inherit notability from the organization. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the user who rm'ed the prod also found a substantial amount of copyvio which he noted on the talk page and did not remove. After said removal by me, there is no longer any relevant information about the building except the photo and infobox. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The AFD is a kneejerk action by MSJapan, who in recent days prodded 4 articles on Masonic buildings and disambiguation pages. All 4 prods were removed; 4th is now at AFD here by MSJapan's nomination, heading towards a very solid Keep. The issues with this article, too, would be naturally addressed in the normal course of editing. The availability of Pakistan sources may be less immediately available or familiar to U.S. editors currently working on masonic buildings topics (see all the activity at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, so fixing this article could take some more time, but there are a number of editors interested in broadening the focus of that list-article. MSJapan and another editor or two have taken a kneejerk viewpoint against inclusion of articles, as a matter of philosopy or POV or strategy in some kind of game. About this specific topic, there is substantial notability apparent, though there are issues in sourcing and in tone. I noted an apparent copyvio possibility, which can be addressed by editing; it does not mean the article topic is not notable. The AFD should just be rejected, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article, whether as a stub or not, is in fact notable. That is the only major concern for an AfD, sources/references and quality are not legit reasons to delete. We are a work in progress.Camelbinky (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more references for the content that's there, but it certainly looks like a historical and notable building, based on the sources already in place. Heck, it must be notable simply because the building is mentioned in the very first page of one of the very best stories ever written, Kipling's Kim.[108] It's also where Kipling (a noted orator, among other things) gave his first speech,[109] and it's mentioned in this biography of Kipling.[110] First Light (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has serious problems, but the sources plus Kipling's membership in this lodge make the topic notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs some clean-up. --NortyNort (Holla) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - There's an WP:ANI discussion on this point here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as it stands is very confused and it's not clear whether it's talking about the building, or the Lodge that met in Lahore. That's not helped by structural issues with the opening paragraph rambling on about Freemasonry being banned in Pakistan, quite common in post colonial Islamic states, rather than the building or the Lodge. I am wary of trying to tidy it up as I'd anticipate some resistance to the required clean up. My gut feel is that the Lodge probably isn't particularly notable, but the building might be, based on assertions from the buildings projects around proxies for the existence of evidence. I would clean it up on that basis. ALR (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No question that the current article is confused! It appears to me that the article needs to be "about" both the Lodge and the notable building(s) it has occupied. The Lodge is notable due to its having been documented by Rudyard Kipling, and the building is notable as a local landmark. The two topics (the Lodge and the building) are sufficiently intertwined -- and the sourced content sufficiently sparse -- that a single article makes sense. When all is said and done, it is likely that the article will have a different title, but that's not a subject for AfD. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced by either of those, although largely that's given the paucity of sources.

It's not clear whether the building itself is notable, and why, or whether there is an assumption of inherited notability as part of a district/ street. From a GNG perspective the doesn't appear to have substantial/ non-trivial treatment in multiple independent sources. It's single sourced at the moment, although there may be more out there. Reducing the notability bar to that used by the buildings projects may be acceptable, but there is no allusion in the article at the moment to the building even reaching that.

As to the Lodge itself being notable because Kipling was a member, then again I'm not convinced that meets the GNG. Notability isn't inherited from Kipling himself, and there appears to be only a single reference to the Lodge that is attributed to him. It may be that his poem The Mother Lodge is an allusion to his own Mother Lodge, but the couple of searches I've just run only speculate on that themselves so it's not known whether it is or not. There is an article on the Peitre Stones] website about Kipling, but again the treatment is very light and refers back to his own brief writing on the lodge. As I recall a couple of editors from elsewhere in Wikipedia objected to the use of Peitre Stones as a source in the past as it's a privately published site.

The sourcing is extremely weak and a critical culling of content woul dprobably leave little more than a pair of speculative paragraphs. But it's clear enough that the majority of votes are likely to be to keep the article anyway.

The other two sources only talk about Freemasonry in general in a Pakistan context.

ALR (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need cleanup and more/better referencing, both of which appear to be ongoing. Both the building and the lodge satisfy WP:GNP with the current references but I do agree that it is important to draw the proper distinction between lodges as masonic organizations and temples/halls as meeting places. Where, as here, the topics are historically intertwined, a single article discussing both is appropriate, in my opinion. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why GNP permits an inherited notability given that Kipling already has a fairly extensive article that mentions his Freemasonry, in particular his dispensation for early initiation?

TIA

ALR (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling's writing about the lodge in autobiography, letter and fiction is not inherited notability but rather written evidence of significant coverage going to meet WP:GNG. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically cite the GNP essay, and I just don't see it. I'm still unconvinced, the secretary of a Lodge isn't independent of the topic. The secretary of a Lodge is pretty much the driving force behind it on an ongoing basis. I remain concerned about the conflation of the Lodge and the building, particularly where there is such a reliance on a single source.

From the perspective of the building we've got a handful of trivial sources, so we're reliant on Kipling, and could reasonably use the material we have in the article about him.

ALR (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lvklock (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that that there are probably many more sources available in Urdu, and in a country that doesn't appear to fawn over historical buildings the way some nations do, the article has become surprisingly well(enough)-referenced. Congratulations to everyone who has helped turn this into a very interesting and keepable encyclopedia article. First Light (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get the impression that the article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. In its current state, the article has enough significant references to demonstrate the lodge's notability. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week Keep~~ I too am concerned that this article relies too heavily on inherited notability. For one thing, the whole Kipling section needs to go... it is unlikely that Kipling ever set foot in the building (Kipling was initiated into Freemasonry in 1885... and the building was not built until 1914... and Kipling was living in England by then). I am removing this section. (Given some poor faith between myself and the editors who wrote this article, I expect to be reverted.) So the question is... can the article stand without the section on Kipling? I think it does... just. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is only going to be about the building, then it makes sense to remove the Kipling section. If—as at least one editor has suggested above—the history of the Lodge and the building are so intertwined as to merit one combined article, then the Kipling history should remain as is. Since the article looks like it's going to be kept, that discussion should probably be held on the article's talk page. First Light (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been clearly defined already both here and especially on the talk page that the article is about both, not just one. It makes it simpler anyways to make it both, since the sources can be convoluted in that regard. Silver seren^C 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind mentioning the Lodge of Hope and Perseverance as being the Masonic owners of the building... but focusing on Kipling is misleading.Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Looking at the article again, it is actually trying to conflate three things... two buildings located at the same site (one built in the 1850s, and another built in 1914 to replace it), and a Masonic Lodge. The Notability of the first, 1850s building is (weakly) supported by Kipling mentioning it in his poems, essays, and fiction. The notability of the second, 1914 building is supported modern sources (although I think we should look for better ones). In a few cases it is not clear which building is being referred to in the sources. The lodge itself is not notable except by inheritance to either Kipling (For this reason, I don't think we should consider the Lodge to be part of the topic... However, it is certainly appropriate to mention it in the article). Given this... I think the topic should be the two buildings. I think there is just enough to support saying that both buildings are notable. The article needs to make it clearer which building is being discussed at any given point (even with recent edits that is confused)... but that is an editing issue, not a notability issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize for this AFD, there is no new implication for the AFD from those tangential statements. All editors besides the nominator have voted Keep or not disagreed with Keep. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram... as a participant in this AfD you are free to say that you don't think a tangent has any implication on an AfD, but the determination as to whether it does or does not have an implication is up to the closing admin. AdD discussions often go off into tangents... sometimes they are irrelevant, and sometimes they greatly influence the outcome. This is because AfD closure is not based on the number of !votes, but on the quality of the arguments that the participating editors make. Please, just be patient and let the process work.

Move to close this discussion. Time to close this. The only discussion is off on tangents and is just costing the time of a bunch of editors. I would close this as obvious, but i am too involved. Someone pull the trigger please. --doncram (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how AfDs work Doncram... be patient. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I am going to have to change my opinion, given how edits are going at the page. As I mentioned above, the article is really about two distinct buildings located on the same site. I have twice attempted to clarify this in the article, only to to have my clarifications removed. As it currently stands, the article deliberately attempts to conflate the two buildings. This sort of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts should not be tolerated. As currently written, the article is seriously flawed and should be deleted. I would be very happy to revert to my previous "week keep" opinion if the misrepresentation is removed. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly an invalid vote. Your displeasure at being reverted in the subject article, about whether or not the lede should explicitly cover 2 rather than 1 building, does not bear on whether or not the article should be kept. Your opinions at the article have been given consideration at the article. Your attempt to hold others hostage for your vote, i.e. your misrepresenting your own views and your gaming, is noted. The closing admin will dismiss or ignore your opinion, I am sure. Thanks for commenting, i guess. --doncram (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article as it stands misrepresents facts, and should either be fixed or deleted. Since I see no evidence of a willingness to fix (and see, instead, a deliberate intent to continue the misrepresentation)... I am changing my vote to Delete. As for whether my change is "valid" or makes any difference... that is up to the closing admin do decide. I merely state why I am changing my vote. I am sorry that this upsets you. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not upset, am just bored by this. Thanks again, i guess. --doncram (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lodge and the building(s) that they meet in form a natural topic and, even if we split them, deletion would not be appropriate fr any component while we can redirect to the other(s). Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 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. Mandsford 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Music Theatre[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Diego Grez (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ʄlame 00:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "support" what? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Readded AfD tag onto page. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organization, probable COI edits from an s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete A7 / borderline promotion 7 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tagged. Diego Grez (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I missed the part about this being a school. Lets let the AFD finish. 7 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would normally consider a merge, but there seems to be near zero coverage for this so I don't think it even qualifies for that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any outside coverage or notability of any form. - Vianello (Talk) 06:31, 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Ankrum[edit]

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

Created two notable cartoons, but absolutely no third party sources found to meet WP:ANYBIO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~ Keep Merge the relevant info into Happy Tree Friends. Notability not inherited, yada yada policy (just kidding) this is a really tough one. I wish I'd been able to find even one interview directly with him or proof that he'd been a featured event speaker or something! Oh well. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research into WP:CREATIVE I think this article fits based on the success of the subject's multiple creative properties.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I'll admit to some confusion to the nominator stating "absolutely no third party sources found", when the Find sources above seems to refute that statement.[111][112] Add them and let's close this AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Upped from "weak". I've done a bit of expanding and sourcing... and yes, the article needs more... but it appears do-able. Since this individual's creations have have been covered in multiple reliable sources over several years, and have received a great deal of critical response,[113] I am now convinced that per guideline, this individual may be determined as notable per WP:CREATIVE's "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He did. They have.[114] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Clearly meets notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 03:48, 27 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) 00:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. Another comment or two would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the notability guideline set forth in WP:CREATIVE. LK (talk) 02:53, 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. Overall it is uncertain whether the inaccessible Russian sources are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Djin[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. A Google News Archive search of her Russian name, ЯНА ДЖИН, looked promising but all of the hits led to error messages. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a fairly well know poet and author with a number of primary sources to establish notability. Article needs sources added and wikified. Don't think she fails WP:AUTHOR. scope_creep (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: without reliable secondary sources a subject cannot pass WP:AUTHOR or any other subset of WP:PEOPLE per WP:BASIC. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. J04n(talk page) 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment if i went to the library of congress, and put eyes on the microfilm of the Hecht and Flyagina (surely a pseudonym) reviews [115] would you accept that? Accotink2 talk 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm leaning delete because there doesn't appear to be sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The author does list reviews on her own page. However, there's nothing to indicate if these are mainstream sources (as in actual book critics) or just reader reviews (which are usually not acceptable). Unless someone can clarify one way or the other, I consider the sources questionable and unacceptable at present. Akerans (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No sources fails WP:N & WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep given the notorious english bias, it's unclear if there were "critical russian aclaim" that it would prevail, an expert is required. interesting column "letters from america" Accotink2 talk 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An English language bias on an English wikipedia. Say It Ain't So. I bet all the other Wikipedias are perfectly balanced. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if a notable poet gets deleted because russian acclaim is not accessible, and reviews are behind a pay wall, does it make a sound? (the quality of the one column suggests that there is a body of work there) Accotink2 talk 21:30, 31 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) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, badly sourced BLP with no indication it's going to be able to be improved. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:15, 5 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 redirect to Ka-Pow!. The consensus here is to keep this article but I'm redirecting per WP:BLP. If someone wants to add sources then the redirect can be reverted (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Graff[edit]

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

Involvement in Happy Tree Friends isn't enough to pass WP:N without any third party sources. I've found nothing that says he's worked with Sonic Colours, BMX XXX or anything not related to Happy Tree Friends. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. In searching, one can find what one wishes to find... or not. Graff has indeed worked on Happy Tree Friends[116] Also on Ka-Pow![117] Also on BMX XXX[118] and is working on Sonic Colours[119] Looks like enough is available to bring this article into line... something that can be done through regular editing... and not requiring deletion simply because it hasn't been done yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 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) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Schmidt. Edward321 (talk) 22:01, 4 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Berman[edit]

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

User has repeatedly removed PROD tags without adding any references. So here we are. AFD based on no sources and no indication of importance. Appears to read more like an autobiography than an encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Somebody needs to take a weed-whacker to the hyperbole: He’s covered every major sporting event over the past decade... That said, this is a big-time sports TV producer that I recognize by name and pretty clearly worthy of inclusion on the basis of career achievement. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources provided that he's a big-time producer. — Timneu22 · talk 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a hack at the hyperbole, overlinking, and grammar plus added appropriate categories and wikilinks. His job titles, as described, do not in my opinion speak to sufficient notability but I'm distantly acquainted with Mr. Berman and so formally rescue myself. - Dravecky (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: With the relisting I decided to do a little digging... The first draft of this article on WP was clear copyvio of his hyperbole-laced header on JayBermanSports.com. Not the guy I thought he was, although I have heard of him before. Previous "Keep" call stricken, now no opinion as to merit of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 24 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) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passing on my usual "no consensus" close and recommending incubation until sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 6 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 speedy delete: G12. Looking through the history, all versions of the article appear to be text that is taken from [120] with no assertion of permission. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avis Richards[edit]

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

CEO of a non-notable charity who knows a lot of famous people. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 25 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) 00:05, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buells Creek Reservoir, Ontario[edit]

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

I cannot find many good sources relating directly to this reservoir. It has potential to redirect to Mac Johnson Wildlife Area but I think the title was wrong in the first place. Should have been Buells Creek Reservoir or just Buells Creek The Eskimo (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 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) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a verifiable geographic feature (44°37′25″N 75°43′26″W / 44.6235°N 75.7238°W / 44.6235; -75.7238) identified as a "provincially significant wetland". Articles on such features are almost always kept. I agree that the article should be moved to Buells Creek Reservoir, though, since the province's name isn't needed for disambiguation. Deor (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same reasoning as provided by Deor. PK T(alk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Deor. Edward321 (talk) 22:14, 4 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 redirect to Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Remembrance Flags[edit]

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

It is possible that "National 9/11 Flag" becomes a notable subject, but this collection of flags under a synthesized heading is not, at least not as "September 11 Remembrance Flags." I note that the content is poorly verified (with less than reliable sources) and seems to be written more as a memorial than as an objective, encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete, a suitable merge target is Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks - that would be a good place to put the worthwhile information currently hosted at this page. It would potentially be a legitimate spin-off from that article if more sources were found and the material increased in lengths, but I think that the "Memorials" page would be a better home for now. TheGrappler (talk) 21:13, 26 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge or delete, if someone doesn't merge soon, just a speedy delete will suffice--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Memorial and services for the September 11 attacks Bluetorpedo123 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I merged this page to the "Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks" page as a new section (I originally created the article)Bluetorpedo123 (talk) 23:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicking Birds[edit]

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

I'm after the community's input on whether or not this band is notable. I have declined a speedy deletion request because the article asserts notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find nothing to support meeting WP:BAND at allmusic or billboard. To me the question is twofold-- does their accompanyment of Modest Mouse on a US tour make them notable and do we have verifiable info that they made the tour? In one revision of the article is the information that their label is owned by the lead for Modest Mouse. Dlohcierekim 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmm. Fairly easily found: Pitchfork album review, Spinner article, PopMatters album review, Paste magazine article, A.V. Club album review. Should be plenty, I think.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michig, but I was hoping for more. I suspect we'll not agree on the "significant coverage" interpretation. If anyone can save this, it's you. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New band, fails all of WP:BAND and no notability by association with supporting more famous brethern. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done what I can to improve the article, so perhaps people who have already commented could take another look? Personally, I think the coverage of the band is more than adequate to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 09:48, 25 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it has more references than sentences now, but I'm not complaining. Good work. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Zambra[edit]

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

Could not find reliable sources for this author. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should stand, although it needs to be expanded and more sources added. Alejandro Zambra is a Chilean author who has a very high profile in his home country, but not much is known about him in the US. He has recently had a novella (entitled Bonsai) translated into English, as well as a translation which has just been released by Open Letter press (The Private Lives of Trees). Some sources for further information about him are as follows:

Open Letter Books: http://catalog.openletterbooks.org/authors/22-zambra Melville House: http://mhpbooks.com/book.php?id=48 Words without Borders: http://wordswithoutborders.org/book-review/alejandro-zambras-the-private-lives-of-trees/ The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/seed-projects-fiction-alejandro-zambra?comment_sort=ASC

-Larissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by LKyzer (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Chilean, and I don't think this author has that "high profile" you claim he has. I couldn't find reliable sources either. Diego Grez (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His book "Bonsai" won the Chilean Critics Award for best novel of the year in 2006, an article about the book would easily meet the notability criteria for books(WP:NBOOK). Amazon cites a review from Las Últimas Noticias describing the novel as “one of the greatest literary events of recent years.” --Jmundo (talk) 17:49, 30 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After searching G.News I found several reliable sources available to establish notability 1, (ex Alejandro Zambra chosen among the best young writers in Latin America) --Jmundo (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jmundo - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:11, 5 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 merge to Turkish nationalism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolianism[edit]

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

It's only a definition and I cannot see how it can be expanded to an article. Kavas (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Anatolianism and Anadoluculuk. Hilmi Ziya Ülken, Mükrimin Halil Yınanç, Ziyaettin Fahri Fındıkoğlu, Remzi Oğuz Arık, Nurettin Topçu etc. Yes you can :) Takabeg (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Turkish nationalism. This is a subarticle coming from that page — which is not exactly overlong with or without this siphoned content. Far better to have one good article than two weak ones. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 25 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Carrite. Material is not developed enough to stand on its own. --Lambiam 22:16, 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) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Internet Hotline[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus Internet Helpline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 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) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Roddick rivalry[edit]

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

Discussed in the talk page but no outcome has come of it. What has been discussed: that this is not a rivalry as it is almost perfectly one-sided; that the sources cited actually refer back to Wikipedia. Fixer23 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 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, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any WP:RS that explicitly refers to this as a rivalry or that one considers the other his rival... rather, it appears to be synthesis based on their head-to-head meetings. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking to delete this a while ago as the rivalry does not have anything special to it. Yes, they met many times; so what? Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Danielle[edit]

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

Her only claim to fame is a starring role in Z-grade cult film The Room (film). There is little to no information about her from established secondary sources on the Web. Laval (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Juliette+Danielle%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

45,000 pages that mention her

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film The Room is now a cult classic for its sheer crapness. I think that actors and actresses that starred in the film are fairly well know. She was a central character. I think the fact that she appeared in such a bad film, confers enough notability to have an article. scope_creep (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film is highly notable and I believe she meets WP:GNG. Also, see WP:ENT which states 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following'. Danielle certainly has that. —Half Price 09:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a legitimate actress who has starred in a motion picture production. The quality or body of her work is not a sufficient reason to delete this entry, only it's accuracy and the actress herself is happy with it's wording. Juliette Danielle is a real person of notable interest in modern culture in the same way the cast of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" would also be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxthedude (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is highly notable, and her role is central to the 'plot' of said notable film. The movie is awful, but it is notable and the actress who played a primary character is thus notable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.3.230.81 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the lead actress in a movie that's been selling out theaters for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.150.43 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Half Price mentioned: she seems to pass WP:ENT due to the cult following. Jarkeld (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film is growing in popularity every day, so we can expect her following to grow with it. It just showed at the New Zealand Film Festival in Wellington! 1 September 2010 user: Betzy2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betzy2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets wikis standards. Everything Half Price said. 92.29.136.146 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't even think of a solid counter argument. The film has quickly become a well-known cult classic, and she has garnered a fairly large cult following. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Yeroushalmi[edit]

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

NOTE: This Israeli History Professor is an expert on Jews in Iran, and not to be confused with David Yerushalmi, an American lawyer.[121] Rd232 ^talk 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article, with weasel words (calling him an "expert"?). There seems to be very little written about ~~this guy~~, but what has been written about ~~him~~ indicates that ~~his~~ views are far more extreme than this tersely-written stub would indicate: [122] [123]. Being controversial and/or extremist is not in itself a reason not to have an article about somebody. However, if he were truly notable, at least one reliable source would have commented on him by now. As far as I can tell, the Southern Poverty Law Center hasn't written anything about this guy. At all. And neither has the Anti-Defamation League. If he were truly notable, at least one of these organizations would have taken notice of him by now, due to the fact that the views he endorses are the kind of views the SPLC and ADL (as well as most people) find repugnant. Another red flag is that this article hasn't been edited at all in nearly 10 months. If he were notable, you'd think someone on Wikipedia would make an effort at improving his article. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being edited doesn't mean much. Many articles on notable people don't get edited much. Also, as I've noted above now, the links you provide relate to a different person with a similar name. Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoooops! What are the chances of that...? Anyway, while it's now clear that this David Yeroushalmi is not the same as that David Yerushalmi, I still don't think either one of them is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably. I've created Emrānī, the poet who is the subject of Yeroushalmi's book. I guess there's no reason to keep this article; he doesn't meet WP:PROF as far as I can see. Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I'm not sure a strong case can be made for keeping this one -- citation counts seem low. But: be sure to check under David Yerushalmi. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'know I can't remember why I created the article; I think it was a naming issue - that the guy was popping up under variant spellings and I thought it would help to have an article so they're linked. Obviously I thought he was notable enough, but I don't recall details. Rd232 ^talk 06:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do recall that at the time his name came up in relation to another article, and was wikilinked from there. But now nothing links here, so it must have been deleted at some point. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't clear that the article creator (me) couldn't remember why he was supposed to be notable. Delete. Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Couldn't you speedy this with a ((db-author)) since the only things anyone else added are a [[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]] and an AFD notice? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 00:05, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Zbornak[edit]

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

Like Miles Webber and Lucas Hollingsworth before this article has no reliable third person sources to indicate notability so should be therefore deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no supporting evidence 80.40.144.68 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 seconds to look through the above Google Books link shows lots of relevant hits in secondary sources. While one might argue that those aren't sufficiently non-trivial, the nomination does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion. There does not appear to be a list of secondary characters to which this article could logically be merged, but there is also no barrier to cleaning up the article to trim excessive plot summary. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is so notable why aren't you adding the sources to demostrate notability . WP:BURDEN is on editors to prove what they writing is true.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you have it backwards. Individual bits of info must be sourced, but it is up to those arguing for deletion on the basis of notability to demonstrate that no sources exist. Thus, demonstrating existence of RS is sufficient justification to ward off deletion. If you care enough about the article to try to delete it, it is actually more appropriate for you tyo go add them. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I'm not finding the sources that the editors in question are claiming exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click news, books, or scholar above. There are sources that mention the character in each of them. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with maybe a paragraph created about this character on the Dorothy Zbornak page. -- role^player 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again Jclemens (talk) you miss the bigger picture you by your own admission have stated the sources you found aren't sufficiently non-trivial. So it would not meet general notability. Because wikipedia policy states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:39, 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.