< 17 July 19 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Jefferson ( Le Sueur County )[edit]

Lake Jefferson ( Le Sueur County ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is about a lake whose claim to notability is that it is the biggest one in the whole county. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:10, 18 July 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 (CSD A7) by NawlinWiki. NAC. Cliff smith talk 02:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alston capital management llc[edit]

Alston capital management llc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company article created with no assertion of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:09, 18 July 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 (A7) by Jmlk17. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allie varley[edit]

Allie varley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect this may not meet the notability for sportspeople, having played only one year for Syracuse University before an unfortunate accident. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORP. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhtree Consulting Ltd[edit]

Bodhtree Consulting Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am concerned that this may not meet the notability criteria and wish to find consensus. Though it may serve agencies in the UK, USA and Asia this is probably not very uncommon, only has 300 employees also. Does not appear to assert any notability in terms of statistics, awards, firsts or achievements. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:18, 18 July 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 Warriors (novel series)#Warriors: Omen of the Stars. JForget 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign of the Moon[edit]

The Sign of the Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced speculation about a future book release. Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. PROD/PROD2 removed without explanation. I42 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Enterprise Java Pattern[edit]

Shine Enterprise Java Pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or collection of FAQ's, which is what this article seems to be Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piltzintecuhtli[edit]

Piltzintecuhtli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been classified as confusing or vague for over a month no that much information on it...you can try to improve it but difficult to do so. Whenaxis (talk) 19:59, 18 July 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, as things changed during the debate. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A Thousand Suns[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A Thousand Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article creation is premature, as on now the article fails WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. Article should be at minimum redirected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" Is there a tracklisting? Nope. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it says "name and track order". Only if both of those are unknown does WP:HAMMER, as written, apply. Powers T 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesnt. It clearly says both, name and track order. Even if there is only one, it still fails hammer. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see how it might be interpreted either way. If it said "If the name and track order together are not yet known", then I would agree with your interpretation. I interpret it as "If the name is not yet known and the track order is not yet known." In that case, either one being known invalidates the clause. Powers T 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer is a strongly used guideline, its not set in stone but it is something good to go by. Regarding the sourcing, it only contains three references, the personal should not even be included considering the album hasnt been released so thats complete WP:OR. And the only references used in the article are regarding the lead single and release date. So how is that considered good referencing? As for the article itself its not notable enough yet, that is why i propose deletion until more information becomes available. (I would support an incubation) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HAMMER is a guideline regarding albums for which little to no information is known, articles that receive titles like Somebands Fourth Studio Album. Here, we have sourced information regarding the title, a producer, and recording information. Which is enough, at least in my opinion, to allow a basic stub on the topic. A redirect is at least feasible until more information is released. However, since this actually *is* the album title, deletion shouldn't be on the table, as its a reasonable search topic, and once more information is released, it would be preferable to simply undo the redirect and add the new information, as opposed to creating a new article from scratch. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator and I have both suggested, incubation would allow the article to be developed outside of the namespace until the album's track listing is verified. Until we get the track listing, this is a crystal ball. Cliff smith talk 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER is neither policy nor guideline, but an essay which is often cited in lieu of actually checking whether an article subject meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's article already has information about this album. Albums get advance stand-alone articles in rare cases, but since the amount of verifiable and properly referenced information about this one at present is indeed stub-class, this is not such a case. Incubation would mean that it wouldn't have to be created from scratch.
As a separate note, this article was deleted less than a fortnight ago—Linkin Park rulz (talk · contribs) recreated it within three hours of its deletion and it was tagged for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion. I don't know if that applies anymore, but there still is not enough information about this album for it to have a stand-alone article quite yet. Cliff smith talk 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies the GNG; with the official announcement, the basis for the previous AFD outcome is no longer applicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not pass WP:NALBUM, which means it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL, which means it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article yet. It's already included at the artist's article, which is where it belongs until we get the track listing. Cliff smith talk 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make a shred of sense. It satisfies the GNG directly (which means it passes NALBUM); WP:CRYSTAL clearly doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay look, we do know the title and release date, so maybe it's not quite a WP:CRYSTAL violation as well, but it still does not pass WP:NALBUM because the necessary trifecta, as it were, of title and release date and track listing is incomplete. Plain and simple. Just because a subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is appropriate for inclusion in a stand-alone article. A Thousand Suns is already included at Linkin Park—basically everything here was already there—which makes this article redundant at least, for the time being. I just don't think that a stub's worth of information about this future album is enough to justify keeping it in the namespace right now. As I suggested already, we can easily incubate this until we get the track listing. Would you be opposed to that? Cliff smith talk 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That's implicit in my keep !vote, close to explicit. It meets the GNG and there's enough information to write a coherent article. Temporary deletion is a waste of effort, not unlike this tendentious argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:NALBUM an augment to the GNG? If that were the case then yes, it seems the most efficient course of action (seeing as more information should be released somewhat in the near-future) that a temporary redirect and incubation of the article makes sense. If NALBUM is not an augment and GNG overrides NALBUM in this case, then possibly the article will stay as it is. Besides, if an article first satisfies the GNG before any other specifics on notability, it seems slightly pointless to have the sub-policies in place. A complete deletion, though, seems a little too much. Garfield1675 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, all the subject-specific notability guidelines, like NALBUM and NFF, are indeed augments to the GNG. I mean, it's not as though there haven't been or aren't cases where albums get advance articles, this just doesn't appear to be one. And I agree that complete deletion would be too much. Even the nominator would support an incubation. Cliff smith talk 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just leave the page, I don't know why you all have your dicks hard about deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.254.51 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a compelling argument... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y 67.241.254.51 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please either contribute to the conversation at hand or step away, but either way, cease your attacks on other users. In all honesty, it's nothing short of being an asinine individual. Either that, or you're just flat out trolling as of which if such is the case, I will report you to the AIV. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
small note -- marked as a music-class stub article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Balogh (footballer born 1992)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ádám Balogh (footballer born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little text, no references and cannot be found on the Web on the western Adam Balogh can be found. Whenaxis (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. This has been open for the better part of a month, and all I'm seeing here is no consensus to do anything at all. Courcelles (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Cardinale[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lindsey Cardinale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American Idol also-ran. Almost no sources, no notability per WP:MUSIC. Contains speculation/OR such as "In late 2007, it was announced that Lindsey had signed with Aria Records Nashville. Her name has since been removed from their website and it appears that Aria Records has released Cardinale from her contract." (As an aside, Aria Records has not proven notable enough for an article.) A search for sources turned up only information dating from her time on American Idol, absolutely nothing after the fact. She appeared on a Christmas album compilation which is also up at AFD for lack of notability. Last AFD was closed as speedy keep due to disruption. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hate to badger but I'm not seeing that she meets 4 or 9. I only see "occasional Idol-related performances" with only one show referenced and she came in 12th on Idol, not what I would consider placing. Her biggest non-Idol accomplishment is that she was a spokesperson for a local auto dealer? one non-charting single? I could go for Merge to American Idol (season 4) but anything else would be far too generous. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not know what I was thinking, I meant to put #1 with the newly found sources by Paul Erik. I do consider being a finalist on American Idol as placing in a major music competition. Aspects (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Idol is an elimination competition. There's no "2nd place." There's one winner, and everyone else loses. No one places, ergo #9 does not apply. And that she appeared on the series does not make her the subject of the series, ergo #12 does not apply.Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no, there is nothing even remotely true in what you just said. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were the case every highschool quarterback would be notable. I'm sorry but coverage of her appearances in a strawberry festival are not going to convince me that she is a notable subject. Spirit of the law should not be trumped by letter of the law.J04n(talk page) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage in 3 states is unlikely in a HS quarterback and is a darn good sign of notability. Heck, honestly coverage of a HS quarterback in any detail is rare these days. I've not seen any such coverage in our local paper in the last 10 years. To see multiple RSes providing non-trivial coverage of a HS Quarterback would actually be a pretty good indication of notability. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs some work, particularly in the opening paragraph where notability is supposed to be indicated (should mention her modelling, spokesperson and recording deal), but the sources and content in the rest of the article indicates that the subject is somewhat notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:01, 19 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Tick Tock[edit]

IDF Tick Tock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this article is simple a collection of indiscriminate details of an event that happened recently. Its more of a news story rather than the historical event it is being portrayed as. Its serves little contextual purpose as it is not a major issue/event in the Israeli Defence League and certainly is not contexually significant to Tik Tok (song). It is simply a random sporadic event which captured some media attention. The page serves no purpose other than to describe what happened in the video as well as acting as a central page for other videos and to transpose indiscriminate details from the media providing no purpose. The event has had little impact upon the IDF or "Tik Tok". Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have concluded further down on this page, some time to think about this and seeing the discussion here has made me reverse my position, so Keep. __meco (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the reasons you give appear not to be sufficient if one reads WP:EVENT carefully. I did because I wanted to see this article kept, however, it appears to fit the exact description of an article which isn't notable despite of widespread coverage.
Here's the critical text: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
I think it is clear both that this story falls into the category "'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena" and that we do not know of any aspect of this which has given it "enduring significance". Actually, there was one thing: the fact that the IDF is going to make an instructional video for its soldiers why it is inappropriate to make such videos or to dance while on duty but I'm not sure that will suffice. __meco (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the more critical (IMHO, of course) text; the above quote from the guidance ignores the more specific reference to how the global scope of coverage impacts a notability determination here:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources... In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.

There is more, but this captures the core elements. The scope of reporting here, broad, widespread, international global very wide coverage in diverse sources, including articles in the highest-level RSs devoted to the subject of this article, is just the sort of non-routine coverage that militates in favor of notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have limited understanding of what an AfD is for. No mandate can be given from this page on whether or how this incident should be discussed in other articles. __meco (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment but its WP:NOTNEWS and its not an event of great significance. Take this example: "If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page? Being covered by reliable sources ALONE is not enough to make it notable. What about the event is so significant? Has it had a lasting impact? NO... its completely random event thats all. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's silly, Lil. As I've already told you, in response to that example, if in your example it: a) leads to 1.6 million hits in a few days; b) the wiki article on it gets 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it is covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – why then, you may have something there. But in your example, it would seem that your wife's incident would lack all the indicia of notability that are in evidence – in copious amounts – here. In fact, it is the coverage in RSs that is at the core of wiki's notability standard. Notability, not fame, is the standard on wiki, and we measure it by just such indicia. Indeed, it would seem that most wiki articles lack quite the level of notability, measure by such indicia, as are present here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have said still does not address the concerns and I've noticed you've dodged the question I asked about my example. (rather articulately but nevertheless dodged). So are you suggesting that if my wife gave birth to a child whilst listening to "Tik ToK" and the incident recieved coverage from news papers and 4600 hits per day I could create an article for it? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not dodged them at all. I've addressed them directly. Let me simplify this. If you were to announce that you prefer one-ply toilet paper, or picking your nose with your pinky, or sleeping on the left side of the bed, and that were to attract: a) 1.6 million hits in a few days on a video of your statement; b) the wiki article on it were to get 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media were to cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it were covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – well, then, you would have a strong case for notability. Now, of course your question is a classic red herring. Why? Because those events would fail to attract that RS coverage, etc. Which is why our notability standard works. It gives us something to point to, other than "Does Lil's POV deem this to be notable". Something more objective.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using other articles as a standard is NOT a suitable argument for this article or AfD unless said articles are GA or FA. No. of hits does not make something notable. IMO none of those should exist. I notice none of you chose to respond to the example I gave... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lil--Perhaps you missed the following in the guidance that you quote. Inasmuch as you mis-state what it says. In pertinent part, it says: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Which, of course, is precisely what our fellow editor is doing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um Lil-unique: You ask ""If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved [sic] coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page?" – well, the only way to really answer your question correctly is if you actually took a video of your wife as actually asking for a song while giving birth, and you then uploaded that to YouTube and got a response that could be measured, we could all judge, but since you evidently have not done so, your example is irrelevant and does not hold any water, and your question has nothing to do with this video which has already garnered massive attention measured the only way it can be done by YouTube's hit counters and wider reporting in the world's media. IZAK (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again you've dodged the question I've asked. My point is just because something has happened e.g. this event, the actual happening of such an event in itself is not notable per the guidelines I've already given. Instead of diluting the discussion by jumping on every alternative answer why don't you answer the question I've asked? Because otherwise all of the comments you personally have made don't address the concerns in my nominating of this article for deletion. The question of the 'wife giving birth' is an example and the answer would have been no! Its not notable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I've answered your question. Explaining it another way, your wife giving birth example will (we can expect) fail to attract 1.6 million hits in a few days, dozens of articles devoted to it in RSs across the globe, 4,600 hits on a wiki article about it, etc. Why? Because it is non-notable. That is what distinguishes it from this article. Which has all of those indicia. And, therefore, is notable. It is these objective criteria that allow us to keep editors from deleting articles on a wholly subjective "IDONTLIKEIT" basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I still stand by my nomination of the article but I can understand some of your POV. Like I said earlier I don't think wikipedia is a place for this sort of content and that's based on my interpretation of the guidelines which is obv. different to yours. Lets leave it as that and allow others to comment because its obv. neither of us are going to change our minds. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right. After having some time to ponder the issue, and seeing the discussion taking place here, I am happy to reconsider the issue. __meco (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

As you may or may not know, this page is not the place to discuss future edits of the article. We are here to decide whether or not to delete the article. You should make that suggestion known on the article's talk page when/if it is kept (or even now, as all things point towards the nomination being rejected). __meco (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually such a comment is appropriate here because if it gains enough support from others the admin who closes the AfD will list that as a condition. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not how AfDs are conducted. At least not any of the many AfDs I have witnessed. __meco (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do know I'm just going to give up commenting on this AfD (I've made my vote alread) because everything I say leads to an some form of clarification or counter-comment or elaboration from yourself. I have a right (and enough experience on wiki) to be able to make WP:BOLD comments/suggestions. I am fed up of my comments being refactored. You appear to be trying to guide this discussion which is most certainly not how AfDs work. I have intitiated and commented on a fair few AfDs in my time so don't patronise me any further. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its just another Youtube video out of billions. With the right keywords any clip can get over a million hits. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the stupidest reasoning I have read in a very long time. I won't even bother to engage its merits. __meco (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article as the term "trivia" isn't mentioned there? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? Also, you cite two WP shortcuts, but you are probably aware that they reference the same target? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, speedy keep is a ridiculous notion. Just say you want the article kept. Will people also stop try to make out that "I Just don't Like it" as my justification? I nominated the article because I felt that such content has no place on wikipedia because of the two policies I've quoted. Something which very few of the "keep comments" have addressed. Instead people have opted to side-step the issue and point to the media coverage as making it notable. My original concerns were that the IDF incident has had little lasting effect on the IDF or Tik Tok. It is not a noteworthy event IMO. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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."
Most such events do not attract 4,600 wiki hits, are not viewed more than 1.6 million times online, do not have dozens of articles written about them, and do not have markedly broad international coverage that includes Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta. This is obviously different from "most events" in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability criteria focus on reliable sources and not on Google hits, YouTube views or similar counts. Also, it is hardly an argument for deletion that other, would-be notable articles haven't been created. __meco (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed your tune. Only early have you been agreeing with others who used the number of hits as a measure of notability. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: For some reason, that I can't fathom, you've stopped your inquiry abruptly short, rather than complete it. Please share with us which of the video you refer to have been mentioned in dozens of RS articles, of RSs of the highest level, with the article being devoted to the video, and the newspapers being geographically dispersed over 10 or more countries. Equally disturbing is your failure to mention the sentence immediately following the one you quote. Which says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Clearly, what is being referred to in the guideline is a very different animal that the one we have here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria which makes its notable for coverage in those RS's is different to the criteria that makes it notable for wikipedia. That much we've already discussed and established above. Many things get coverage by RS's but that doesn't mean they're notable or appropriate for wikipedia. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related controversy on song talk page[edit]

Since the issue is clearly related I will give a heads-up to contributors on this page that there is an ongoing Request for Comments at the song's talk page over whether or not to include mention of this incident on that page. Please see Talk:Tik Tok (song)#RfC: Should the IDF dancing incident be discussed in this article?. __meco (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University College School 1978[edit]

University College School 1978 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a picture that purports to show several notable individuals but does not indicate which they are. The article asks people to fill in the blanks to identify individuals. This is obviously going to be very difficult to provide sources for. noq (talk) 18:34, 18 July 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 R. L. Stine. T. Canens (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadets (trilogy)[edit]

Space Cadets (trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Courtesy nomination on behalf User: 69.181.249.92 who requested it here: WT:AFD#Step 2 of AFD process needed. The deletion rationale given by User: 69.181.249.92 at Talk:Space Cadets (trilogy) is: Fails notability criteria for books. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Lady[edit]

Fast Lady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on non-notable band by editor with a close connection to the subject ("We have fans all over the world..."). Virtually no independent coverage (found this, but not much else): fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND. Ghits on "Fast Lady" appear principally to be about the (unrelated) film The Fast Lady. Speedy declined -- or, rather, ignored -- so bringing to AfD. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason (chef) Ellis[edit]

Jason (chef) Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contestant on Hell's Kitchen. All references are from that show's website, and all that Google returns that is not more of the same are trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:33, 18 July 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 deletion argument except the nom JForget 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Raven Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; GNews hits either trivial or relate to similarly named persons. Would-be starlet who made one porn video then got into lawsuits with her producers/merchandisers. Most sources are promotional, not independent of subject. Survived previous sock-infested AFD despite lack of legit keep !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AFDs --78.100.251.96 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Additionally, how many nominations is this? I'm seeing two 'second'nominations. --78.100.251.96 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you determined to embarass yourself, Michael? Most of those are just T&A pages that are hosted on minimally reliable "news" sites; the venerable "DERF magazine" page is just a bad translation (heavily T&A-illustrated) of the Wikipedia article, and the "Vanguardia" link reveals the otherwise unknown fact that Ms. Riley was responsible for the breakup of Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Roberts, a point that seems to have escaped the Hollywood press if not the entirety of the English-language media. It's always a good idea to read and review sources before you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your continued incivility when someone disagrees with your personal opinions, acts to make Wikipedia a sometimes unpleasent place to even try to offer an opinion. I made no claims about the sources, only showing that a search finds them... even if only on (your opinion) minimally reliable "news" sites. If these "minimally reliable news sites" show T&A of an actress who is known for her T&A, and it so offends you, then close your eyes. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on Wikipedia, but your denigrating any other who dares disagrees with you, embarasses both yourself and the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me, spare all of us such whining. You claimed the "sources" you alluded to helped satisfy the GNG. You didn't bother to check the substance of them; they miss being independent and reliable by a country light-year. T&A pages which include little more than the equivalent of "Raven Riley is a hot porn star. Look at these hot pictures of her" aren't independent, reliable sources and do nothing to contribute to notability. Your false suggestion that I'm trying to argue that the sources should be ignored because they're "offensive" is much less civil than anything I've said; I think the sources should be ignored because they're worthless. The bottom line is that this is a performer who made a single, thoroughly non-notable porn film and fails every relevant notability standard, and your argument shows only that you'll defend the inclusion of virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval invasions of Britain[edit]

Medieval invasions of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I never like taking purely "bad" articles to AFD, it not being cleanup and all, but this one warrants it I fear.

In short, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Unreferenced and full of statements of an entirely dubious nature, it tries to take an entirely arbitrary period (is 450AD medieval anyway?), then pick out selections. The result is not good.

I realise that this comes close to the definition "AFD is not cleanup", and if you think that the article could be made a go of, that it is better to have something than nothing even if the something risks completely mi-portraying events, then I would not be surprised. But needless to say, I disagree. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC) - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ST courier[edit]

ST courier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hit niyash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Contested" prod. Subject is Indian delivery company. No evidence this meets WP:ORG. Article is just advert. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santos (Ugly Betty)[edit]

Santos (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - minor fictional character with no reliable sources to demonstrate independent notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Character is already covered in character list and the article's name is an implausible search term; no need to merge or redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabia (Ugly Betty), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter (Ugly Betty) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila (Ugly Betty) for recent similar examples, all resulting in deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Gambarro[edit]

Gina Gambarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - minor fictional character with no reliable sources that establish independent notability. Violates WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Character covered in list article. Unlikely that someone searching for Ugly Betty will remember and search for this minor character's name. No need for redirect or merge. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Knüttel[edit]

Dieter Knüttel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 17th June 2010. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability".Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using MANOTE rather than MMANOT? Paralympiakos (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MANOTE is martial arts notability, MMANOT is MMA notability. He is a martial artist, not a mixed martial artitst. Astudent0 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

League of Ireland in European competition 2010-11[edit]

League of Ireland in European competition 2010-11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for a WP:CFORK, subject of article already sufficiently covered at 2010 League of Ireland#League of Ireland clubs in Europe 2010–11. Note: PROD was contested, thus AfD. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:45, 18 July 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha michels[edit]


Natasha michels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Natasha Michels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Another copy of the same material)(correction not infact the same material, but an unfinishhed lesser version)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

17-year old painter, fails WP:ARTIST and no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. No relevant hits on Google News, or even on Google Web. Prod removed by IP without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a reliable source so that the information can be verified it does not help establish notability, sorry. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 08:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ill do my best to actulaly get a copy of the manuscript then. sigh Sr2020 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A private copy of the auction manuscript is not appropriate documentation; that would constitute original research. If the sale price is indeed notably high (a "record"), then surely a reliable news source will find it worthy to report on, and you will be able to simply cite that coverage.
Incidentally, you appear to have more than a casual connection with the subject of the article. You should therefore make sure to familiarize yourself thoroughly with our Conflict of Interest guidelines before commenting or editing further. Hqb (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please justify your claims against me. also u cleary do not understand the relation between cont art and localised media Sr2020 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No claims, just a friendly reminder about an important Wikipedia guideline that you need to be aware of. Hqb (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate the thought, but i was already well aware of this guideline. cheers Sr2020 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have u taken time ot look at the mca website, its jsut a selfpromoting peice of junk intrested in furthering profits, it does not tlel speciifcly of any artists show exhibitions etc all it does is promote. they have tight strict contract laws with artisit mainly because of things like the internet whihc make information so easily gotten a killer to attrating intrest ot a museum. they prefe rot keep things "traiditonal and classy" piublishing books programs etc anything thye can to get people down to the msueum to learn for themselves. I have given date of frnakie but i can add issue specifis if u like. also their auctions are not publicised and are ivnite only which outcome snot given to press or public in t e intrest of the msueum,artist and msot importantly the buyer. this is one way to beat there tightntess and ifnally get peoples names out there who desevre it, this is nto so much a battle of michels but a battle to break the norm, beat the system etc etc sorry bout the typing etc etc etc 13:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs)


i may also request that any comments made by user:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome should not be taken into consideration because of the racial biased he brings to the topicSr2020 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

it can b varified, give me couple days to get a copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source produces the information it is not usable to verify the information. Not saying that you would do it, but anyone can put together an official looking document. So if you get a copy of the document and post it that does not verify that the document is legitimate. I hope you understand. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ahk fair enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be notable if there were any evidence of either claim... Peridon (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely sure, but they may have been referring to this edit that you made that talks about someone who hasn't even commented on the AFD being racist. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm cant find his exact post either but the racism didnt come on this but infact my own talk page thigny for my account. He basicle said anybody who does not have an english education( ie me being sri lankan born) must be very very very stupid which i find very racist to any non english speaking country and also quite discriminitory to any one less fortunate in english speaking countries.i think at the time he wasnt signed in and commented under the ip of:70.21.13.215 but i can not be entirely sure my only guess to this is that he refered to my comment below this post about email in his racial rant. Sr2020 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only person to bring race into this was you. The IP editor just pointed out that you ought to pay more attention to basic spelling and grammar if you want people to take you seriously. Your comments do give the impression of someone who simply can't be bothered to write proper English, not someone who is merely not a native speaker. And as a matter of fact, it is quite proper to expect contributors to an English encyclopedia to display a minimal level of proficiency in that language. Occasional honest mistakes are perfectly understandable and excusable; blatant disregard of the rules is not, and calling people "racist" out of the blue is definitely not appropriate, either. Hqb (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so do u agree then anyone without an english education ios very very stupid? also wikipedia isnt stircly an english encyclapedia Sr2020 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Wikipedia is not strictly an english encyclopedia, it is multiple encyclopedias in many languages. This Wikipedia that you are posting to is strictly the English one. SO people do expect other editors to try to display a minimal level of proficiency. Your English is very hard to read but I think we understand your points. There are people without an English education who are very smart and there are people with an English education who are very stupid. Where the education comes from or what language they speak has nothing to do with their intelligence level. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats was exactly my point thankyou gb fan and is why i had a big problem with what biginome proejct(cant rmb name exactly) said and why hpb supported it with a very hurtful tone towards me(may not of been intentially) Sr2020 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you honestly don't know which of "you" or "u" is the proper spelling, then no, you probably shouldn't try to contribute to the English Wikipedia, regardless of your general level of intelligence. If you do know, but simply don't care, and still expect everyone else to pay full attention to your comments, then you are indeed probably "either very young or not very very smart". Now, can we please get back to discussing the merits of the Natasha Michels article? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i do know the difference but i sitll tyr to limit the amount of letters word i use and stick to thigns i know so i dont get confused and become incoherant im sure u quite able to udnerstand what "u" is refering to and i belive i should try to contribute i live in australia now and i need to learn to better adapt and immerse myself within its culture i onyl try to help and edit and add thigns and when i do edit proper pages i will take my time and continuely check and whatever i miss hopefully it isnt to much for someone to help me out. i feel veyr unrespected by you at the moment as im only trying to contribute as i thought wikipedia wnated but im being met very apphrensivly, u continue to be cruel wihtout any hint of remorse and u continue to hint upon discrimination to those lacking english skills saying they have nothing to offer engish society and encylpedia then top of it of with a quotation and refernce back to the terribly hurtful racial remark. Please be more compassionate, because i can not continue to discuss the articles merit when i feel im being targeted i get hurt and my comment as uv probly seen turn into unfair anrgy rants that dont add to the topic at all (like this one for example which i apoligse for ina dvance but i needed ot be ehard) Sr2020 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I would have assumed someone with a good command of English, but a poor command of - or an indifference to - typographical accuracy. The spelling errors in the main are typos not a lack of knowledge of the language. A use of txting comes to mind, too. I have had quite some experience with users of English as second language, dyslexics and people whose fingers can't keep up with their minds. (Me, for one in the last case...) Slow down. There's no prize for speed. There is advantage in getting your point over clearly. (I am currently writing some pieces narrated by a person whose spelling is way behind their intelligence. It's great fun, and not nearly as easy as it sounds...) Peridon (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so many paintings are dols every dayy, fairly high priced paintings are sold every week, high priced paintings ar esold every month-year with extreme unpredictable time variations and patterns. The "internet" is rarely told as stated before because of agremeents and suchs between buyers holders etc etc i know this doenst help the claim and wont sotp being dleted cause no proff but i just needed to combat the question of hoaxs Sr2020 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm happy to be proved wrong too. But, if these things are secret, we can't use them - because we can't check them. I would have thought, however, that a very high price paid for a very young artist's work would not be kept secret. Purchasers of paintings like to keep their value high, and secrecy works against this. (In the case of Old Masters, other factors come into play...) Interesting that a copy of this article (copied and pasted complete with square brackets and cn tag has appeared at Zimbio - posted by someone claiming to live in Beijing. Not a valid reference, of course, but interesting....... Peridon (talk) 09:50, 24 July 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Dombrowski[edit]

Louise Dombrowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence of notability. The only "references" to pages which give only very brief mentionsi. The article itself says the character appears for only "just a few seconds", and the claim to significance seems to rest on the unattributed and unsourced subjective view that the character "is one of the most memorable". PROD was removed with no explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_OnR0QK0k Nadavkna (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you actually read those "several sources"? A couple of them do not mention Louise Dombrowski, and the others do not by any stretch of the imagination give substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a discussion of the significance and meaning of this scene by someone like Jacques Derrida, I might be more impressed. But remember that Bill having an article doesn't mean Ben gets one as a matter of course. I have read most of Kafka, but I will confess to not having watched Twin Peaks. Mind you, I don't know if it was shown over here, and I see very little TV anyway (not having a working set or current licence and managing to avoid watching other people's sets whenever possible). I base my opinions here on the article, not on being a fan. While Twin Peaks does have notability, I fail to see that this scene does, and also cannot see how it could compare with 'Before the Law'. Peridon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if the article were to be about the scene itself, in which this character appears, and its relevance or notability within the context of the show and the story-arc, then I can see that there is a rationale for the article. Question is - what's it to be? "Louise Dombrowski" or "The Hook-Rug Scene"? Either way, perhaps we should be discussing the rationale for a merge to Twin Peaks rather than a standalone. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:11, 19 July 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. This can be transwikied under request from any sysop of Wiktionary. My expereince says they are unlikely to want it, however. Courcelles (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntold[edit]

Voluntold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition and neologism. There is coverage in urban dictionary and some similar resources, but not sources I'd generally consider reliable. In searching Google News, there is usage (about 50 hits?) but nothing I saw there that provides coverage of the term rather than simply using it (see WP:NEO.) I'm recommending either outright deletion or transcoding to Wiktonary. j⚛e deckertalk 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale, no delete votes, and the only complaint has been addressed after nomination. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Railways M class (diesel-hydraulic)[edit]

Victorian Railways M class (diesel-hydraulic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has hardly any information. sillybillypiggy 10:33, 18 July 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begin (computer game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Begin (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: begin tactical starship simulation)


Article does not present any reliable sources for verification, nor provide a rationale for notability (WP:V, WP:N). Previous AfD did not provide any valid keep arguments, and was closed when the nominator conceded a merge proposal (which never took place). In its present state, I can't endorse a merger since there's no verified information to merge. Abandonia is disputed as a reliable source (WP:VG/RS) Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that's not the case, but the sources need to be provided and placed in the article to prove it. I would suggest flagging the article for ((rescue)) and someone may possibly be able to help. Without sources we can't prove its notability, old or new. --Teancum (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. does anyone here have access to an index of periodicals, and can they help to try to start tracking some of this stuff down? It looks like in this case, some processed wood pulp will need to be called in to help the electrons!!! :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey...have you guys seen this discussion???! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Krall Fry[edit]

Maia Krall Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an actress who is currently non-notable. Acting less than a year (according to the article) and best known for roles in films which are still only at the filming stage - she has yet to make a name for herself. Appears to have appeared on stage, but not attracted any independent coverage. No objection to recreation if she makes a name for herself, but right now she has not. I42 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash[edit]

2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is concerned with a crash that does not meet notability guidelines. WP:AIRCRASH states that military aircraft crashes are rarely deserving of their own articles and I see nothing in this, such that it should be one of those rare articles. Is it the first involving the type; no. Is it the deadliest; given there have been prior fatal accidents and the normal crew is five, probably not. Has it resulted in changes in procedures etc.; apparently not. YSSYguy (talk) 07:40, 18 July 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Foster[edit]

Michael G. Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial artist. Fails to meet any of the criteria in WP:MANOTE. His claim to fame was founding an offshoot (found non-notable by AfD) of a martial art that was also deleted for lack of notability.

You have to go back a ways for sources. The practitioners who brought karate to the US in the late fifties and early sixties are now in their seventies or eighties. Pkeets (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, check the article now. I rewrote it to show notability and added third party references--I believe there are now five plus. How many do you want?Pkeets (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USKA was the United States Karate Association and was the first karate organization in the United States, founded by Robert Trias in 1948. Trias also opened the first karate school in the US in 1946. The USKA became one of the largest associations of karate instructors in the nation, and through this organization Trias was also instrumental in setting up and promoting the first karate tournaments in the nation, as well as the first world-wide competitions. The Euro-Cup Competitions are overseen by the European Karate Federation.Pkeets (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Swift, Jack. "The Giant of Southern Karate." Black Belt Magazine, February 1973, p. 31.
The tournaments are not unspecified. The USKA conducted the only national tournament circuit in sixties, and the USKA Grand Championship was the only national championship at that time. The supporting evidence for the four-year championship title isn't bad. One reference is a history page from Tampa Bay, where Foster had his first dojo, and the Chito-ryu source independently verifies this. The article in Black Belt verifies the Florida title. Pkeets (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate on why you think that. Thanks DubZog (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number of unsourced claims, such as all those trophies. Also I am not sure what all the sources seem to be used for.. Some appear to not be supporting the text of the articel but mealry that something exsts. . I think all the sources need checking.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the 1973 source Black Belt Magazine's documentary article "The Giant of Southern Karate" which covers only Mike Foster and references his retirement (undefeated) from the Florida championship position. Regarding the Chito-ryu karate schools and the national USKA title, here's a quote from the Chito-ryu source(unaffiliated with Yoshukai since 1971):
"In January 1963 Dometrich Sensei attended a karate tournament in St. Louis, Missouri sponsored by James Wax, Bob Yarnall and Ansei Ushiro of the Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu Karate Federation - Shoshin Nagamine's students. He met a very tall, extremely impressive individual named Mike Foster, who had been a student of Sensei Watanabi and Sensei Mamoru Yamamoto, who was a Chito-ryu Sensei from Northern Kyushu. Sensei Foster had studied karate under Yamamoto when he was in Japan as a member of the U. S. Air Force. Sensei Foster later became the United States karate champion in kumite for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. During this time Sensei Foster headed many karate schools which were part of the U. S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation."Pkeets (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references for the championships, and put in sources at the "citations needed" tags. Pkeets (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article supplies secondary references for the following from WP:MANOTE:
  • 1. Subject of an independent article/documentary (Swift, Jack. "The Giant of Southern Karate." Black Belt Magazine, February 1973, p. 31.)
  • 2. Founder of notable style (Yoshukai International - see list of international organizations)
  • 4. Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) (United States Karate Asssociation national champion from 1966 to 1969) Pkeets (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not all of your sources seem to support the text, also I wondert if http://yoshukaitampabay.com/History.aspx is RS. Also you rasie antoiher issue, copyright violations. Much of this articel seems to be lifted verbatum form other sources. Also your quote says "United States karate champion " not "USKA champion". Also the The Giant of Southern Karate source says he won the Grand nationals in florida it does not say "Florida Karate State Champion", and in the title says he gave up the state championship, but not which one (thorough it may have been Florida) it does say that he says he is Florida heavy weight champion, but the article does not confirm this. Moreover which tornament did he win, is it a notable one? Yoshukai International is an organisation, what style does he practice? The only citeria I think he might meet is 1, but is it independant? Also (a general question) does meeting only one of these count (also I would ask you how does this man not meet "1.Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art)? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short, attributed snippets of a piece used for the purpose of commentary or education is generally considered fair use under copyright law. Plagiarism is the use of another's language verbatim, but here again, the work is attributed. Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, so it is required to use material from secondary sources. However, it's best not to have verbatim passages in the article without using quotes. If you see something in particular that should be quoted, please point it out. Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After complaining about verbatim language above, now you're quibbling because the language doesn't exactly match? Also, I notice you've made a comment at the article that it should be "more in keeping with wording in sources"? The USKA Grand National Champion was the US champion at the time, because there was no other national competition from 1966 to 1969. Note the use of capitals: USKA Grand National Champion is the specific title, while "US karate champion" is not. I expect that Tampa Bay is reliable--it appears to be part of the subject's organization, which is more likely to have specific information on the activities of the founder, whereas other sources are more likely to be general references, as pointed out above. Pkeets (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MANOTE lists national competitions as significant, and the USKA was the only national competition at the time, so the title meets the requirements for notability. Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source for an independent documentary. It is commercial, but it provides an excellent record of what was going on at the time. All articles would have been evaluated by the editors for "importance" to their readers before they ran, which indicates Foster was interesting and important enough for a full documentary article.Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the links in the article for more information. The style is Yoshukai and the organization is Yoshukai International. Pkeets (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In responce to USKA Grand National Champion this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=The+USKA+Grand+National+Champion&source=bl&ots=G7up2AhfC3&sig=0vn_IPZLNSTBg1czBmqGQGz5Zh8&hl=en&ei=IZxFTPCRA4Si0gT06823BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20USKA%20Grand%20National%20Champion&f=false seems to imply there are more then six winners a year (I assume in wieght cats) which one did Mr Foster win? Also I note that My Foster is not mentioned as a winner, yest the claim is made he won that year. So we still need a source for that claim. By the way I doubt his own schools website is RS. This http://karate-in-english-lewis-wallace.blogspot.com/2008/04/tournaments-and-promoters.html seems to imply that hte claim that "The USKA Grand National Champion was the US champion at the time, because there was no other national competition from 1966 to 1969" may not be true. Also it does not list Mr Foster as a winner of "USKA Grand Nationals". is Yoshukai a notable style? Also did he invent the style or just the organisation, as every source I have found says that Yoshukai was created in 1963 by Mr Yamamoto?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking at Wallace and Lewis, then I think you're looking at the PKA, which was organized in 1974. It's fairly clear from the Black Belt article that Foster would have been the heavyweight champ as it gives his height and weight. It's a judgement call on the the organization vs. style question. I personally think all the Yoshukai organizations whould be considered the same style. However, it does appear that Yoshukai International was a pretty large organization at its height with a large number of schools and students claiming Foster as their Hanshi. Pkeets (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not follow your first point, what is it in repose to (if its in reposnse to my first source it says clearly 1967, the year Mr Foster ids supposed to have one, by the way how many cats are there?)? As to your second, we cannot make assumptions, besides we still need RS claiming he won. It does not matter how large the organisationn is. to count for criteria 3 he has to found a notable style, not an organisation, he did not found the Yoshukai style. Also you cannot make claims not expressly supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had a look at your sources. I suspect the reliability of the blog source. I may be in error that the USKA was the only national "karate" organization in the sixties, but isn't Kenpo Chinese arts? I expect weight and rank classes would have varied by tournament, but I have no access to this kind of detail from tournaments in the 1960s. There are multiple sources that reference Foster as the winner in 1967, included one referenced in the article from an independent Chito-ryu history, so I'm unable to resolve this conflict. I notice that the Yoshukai sites list Foster as Kancho, which means head of the style. Again, this seems to me a judgement call, but as he's noted for adapting traditional techniques for full-contact fighting, then the technique may have departed from earlier Yoshukai sufficiently to call it the beginnings of a different style.Pkeets (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It dose I thought it was a type of wedgie? By the way head of style would not mean originator. I sugwst you find a source that says he founded the school (or that his version is sufficantly differnt to be a new style (and also a notalbe style)).
By the way we may be dealing with old politics. The blog does not list Mr Foster as winner of the USKA Grand Nationals, but it does not list any winner it ignores the whole period. Given that fact rher was a split it may be that we (perhaps) are delaing with different USKA Grand Nationals or the same one but having stripped him of his titles (or all kinds of sillyness I have not thought of). We would need to clear this up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(tab out) I see that Chito-Ryu Breakaways lists Foster as "founder" and separately from Yamamoto. ( http://www.chitoryu.com/breakaways.htm )

I agree that there may be some politics involved. How do you propose we clear up the conflict between sources? I thought Foster met the notability guidelines, or I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to write the article. Again, there are multiple sources online that refer to him as "karate champion," or "national karate champion," but even the sources used within the article disagree on the details. The USKA was dissolved in 1999, and I doubt original records from the sixties would be available anywhere. Pkeets (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is talking about the organisation, not the style "In 1980, Foster would break away from Yamamoto to establish his own organization, The Yoshukai International which is unaffiliated with Sensei Yamamoto's Yoshukai Organization". Unfortuantly I doubt there is a way to resolve the conflict in sources, and as such I do not bleive that notability has really been met. It might be better to merge this with Yoshukai Karate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. The sources may disagree on dates but it's fairly clear that Foster was a notable national/international champion in the sixties, and that he made significant contributions to the development of world-wide karate as a sport in the late 20th Century. Notability doesn't expire, and the conflict doesn't negate the fact that the championship is reported by multiple sources. The question is how to handle the conflict in the dates.Pkeets (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Yoshukai International was established in 1977 (33 year history) and lists schools in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Germany, Latvia, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (international, reports large number of students) and seems to have notable practitioners ( I find Calvin Thomas winning a championship final right off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNb1tBaV7RA ), but I don't immediately see the independent documentary. My judgement is that Yoshukai International is somewhat notable, but maybe not sufficiently to have its own article without the rest of the Yoshukai body of work.Pkeets (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting all of the guidelines in WP:MANOTE isn't required to establish notability, BTW. See Joe Lewis (martial artist) for example, who is apparently only a notable competitor without other qualifications. Pkeets (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? "In the USA, sources list him as the United States kumite champion 1966 through 1969." This is followed by the Tampa Bay listing of the USKA title, which has slightly different dates. There may be more than one championship involved. Pkeets (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while checking around, I've located another championship: In 1970 Foster won the black belt heavyweight trophy at the second U.S. International Karate Championships. (See Cirone, George. "Karate Kop-Out." Black Belt Magazine. June 1970, p. 48.) The article seems to be complaining because he declined to participate in a competition between the weight classes at the end of the championships. Note that they have left Delgado out of the list of kumite winners, so their reporting of results isn't especially accurate. http://books.google.com/books?id=pc4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=larry+pate+karate&source=bl&ots=ZYDsFWn3LP&sig=fiaCLKYakFpdz2Y5bEvj7HCSJn4&hl=en&ei=Kt9FTOSuKsX_lgeq7-jsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=larry%20pate%20karate&f=true Pkeets (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this does is confirm to me that this is going to be hard to prove notability as the sources are so contradictory.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a win reported in the USKA Florida Open 1968 p. 56. http://books.google.com/books?id=aM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=mike+foster+karate+trophy&source=bl&ots=A7-6Em3orm&sig=g124-z9j45drPye7wXRl-rJEvOc&hl=en&ei=kvdFTMrwHoO8lQfWsOTsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true Here's an article that describes him as a "three time" USKA Grand Nationals winner. http://books.google.com/books?id=PdYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=Mike+Foster+karate&hl=en&ei=hflFTI-FC4G78gbB6rCLBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mike%20Foster%20karate&f=true This looks like a win at the USKA Grand Nationals again in 1970, including pictures. http://books.google.com/books?id=f84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&dq=Mike+Foster+karate+%22Mike+Foster%22&hl=en&ei=ZftFTPnZNIK78gbG4v2WBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mike%20Foster%20karate%20%22Mike%20Foster%22&f=true Since this is unclear in the sources available, I'll make the USKA Championships date reference more general. Pkeets (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding redundant comments left at the article: The information is gathered from several sources, and if you insist on sourcing every phrase, then the article will be unreadable because of the sourcing. Also, if you insist that the language exactly match the sources, then you're requesting plagiarism. I think the article is sufficiently sourced and that your complaints are unfounded. Would it help if I spelled the subject's name as Maikeru Fashita? Pkeets (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking that you source claims such as winning trophies or which do not match what the sources say. Sources do not have to be used word for word, but they do have to say what the articel says, not what you want them to say. A source has to explicitly support the articel. Also you have still not established that he is the Founder of notable style (style not school or governing body) or to clear up (you have just added more sources that add to the mud) the question of his titles (which not everyone seems to think he had). This is interesting, not only does it seem to imply that (at this time) the USKA championship was not ‘the big time’. But also Mt Foster is not listed as a winner, and yet the following year was defending champion. In fact it says that Joe Lewis won the grand championship that year (1969) it also does not list Mr Foster as defeding champion, in fact mR Lewis beats someone else http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=USKA+Grand+National+Champion+1969&hl=en&ei=D-NGTObfAdOQjAfT4ez0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=USKA%20Grand%20National%20Champion%201969&f=false. This http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ps4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=uska+grand+national+champion+1970&source=bl&ots=p8Jdo9e1kM&sig=mvRtBn_GNXcRHp1r5wD-Apfivy4&hl=en&ei=KvhGTIKOLZKi0gTzrp3GBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=uska%20grand%20national%20champion%201970&f=false says that in the 1970 grand championship Lewis was defending and lost to Bill Wallace. So I think we may be talking about different titles. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What issues? This is a good opportunity to improve the article. Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was bothered by the fact that some of the sources describing his titles weren't really independent, but the additional BB magazine articles have helped. The main thing bothering me now is the apparent uncertainty about exactly what he won and when he won it. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I can do anything about that except make the dates more general, and say such things as "sources report..." As mentioned above, the sources conflict and the Black Belt Magazine reports of competition results are clearly inaccurate (see Delgado). I have no access to tournament results from the sixties. Any suggestions? Pkeets (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way would be to say the source in the context of the page like : According to Black belt magazine or Karate international etc.... I think the "Puffery" wikirule best describes what we should do in this case of conflicting sources (not that its is Puffery in the case... anyways just see the example here--->Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Puffery). Moxy (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the specific list with the sources where I've recorded the info. I'll put this approximate list into the article, but I don't know that it will improve the style. BTW, I still have concerns about the appearance of such dense sourcing. When I see an article with every statement referenced, then I expect it's been challenged. Why, for example, should citations be provided for the statement that Foster established and headed Chito-ryu schools in the early sixties? Will this protect the article from further challenges later on?
because 'facts' have to be verifiable. That is how wiki works. Nor is every statement sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion described in Yoshukai Latvia?. Also Tampa Bay is his organisation so cannot be RS.
I will also still keep my vote as is, I am not sure what is gouing on with sources. But I do not bleive that what we are reading from Black Belt is independant of the source (the main Black Belt article seems to be about putting his side of the story in part). The magazine may be but not the person writing the articles. If another indepth source could be found I might change my mind on that. Alo how can he have been florida state champion in 1970 to 1973 when the Black belt magazine (1973) says he gave up the championship 3 years ago? In nfact that6 articel makes clear that he thinkls hes still the champion he has just not compeated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All-Service Karate Champion in Japan, Dubious source (his own organisation)
  • Southern All-Japan Champion in 1965, one good source (but is this a notable title?) Leave out the other (his own organisation)
  • Three-time United States Karate Association (USKA) Grand National Champion, A good source for this Rough, Tough Yoshukai Karate: Traditional Karate's Link to Full-contact Fighting. Leave out the other as it does not really say this, and in fact is a contested year (there was another victor in 1970)
  • U.S. International Karate Champion in 1970, sorry source only says first place in Black belt division it says Delgado won, for a second year
  • Florida Karate State Champion from 1967 to 1975, Dubious source (his own organisation). Other source lists him as a winner, but does not give any details other then to imply that he did not compete in three of these years.
  • Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion in 1978, Dubious source (his own organisation). I cannot find any reference to the Duisberg Euro-Cup Karate Champion in then other source the closest seems to be the statement that he “participated also here as the 7th Dan in championships and could prove his superiority.”.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison Bollay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dennison Bollay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. When I try to find sources on this individual, the 234 Google matches all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or passing references. How this ever survived the first nom for deletion is beyond me. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic Hills, Medina, Ohio[edit]

Rustic Hills, Medina, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. This is an article about a subdivision in a town of 25,000. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Meadow Estates, Medina, Ohio[edit]

Fox Meadow Estates, Medina, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. This is an article about a subdivision in a town of 25,000. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 18 July 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. Have speedy deleted as no indications of importance provided. Davewild (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C3 United[edit]

C3 United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joshua Cuanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, and Mr. Cuanan is a member of that band. Both articles were created by a possible SPA. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the two articles (Joshua Cuanan) has been speedily deleted. Mauler90 talk 09:10, 18 July 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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Barrett-Mills[edit]

Jesse Barrett-Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, at all -- no independent sources writing about this minor director of unreleased short documentaries. plus it's an orphan article. i suspect it's a promotional entry created by sock puppet. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bchang84 16:21, 6 July 2010

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, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:07, 18 July 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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia (band)[edit]

Nadia (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like the article has been speedy'd a couple of times and notability remains marginal. Eeekster (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:05, 18 July 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekargutho Monastery[edit]

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

No information was found anywhere about it, only wikipedia-related. Also in search engines. SHould be deleted and removed from template TheNeon (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Here is the description: Thanks, I think, it can be now kept TheNeon (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the hospital north of Jakar is the Sey (Gold) Lhakhang, properly known as Lhodrak Seykhar Dratshang. This is monastic school, established in 1963, with about 25 students. The central figure in the lhakhang is Marpa Lotsawa, a great teacher and translator of the Kagyu linage. The chapel is open to visitors.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tahdra Monastery[edit]

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

No information was found anywhere about it, only wikipedia-related. Also in search engines. SHould be deleted and removed from template TheNeon (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why haven't you notified the creator of the article? It's part of the process. The guy seems to have created many such articles. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have inspected all the stubs of monasteries in Bhutan. Many of them really exist (I can find them in Google, Guide book, on the map etc. But only two I could not find, so, I aply to delete these two only. TheNeon (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:02, 18 July 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 Prince Talal bin Muhammad#Personal life. JForget 00:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Hussein bin Al Talal[edit]

Prince Hussein bin Al Talal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:V--Can't verify. No sources via Gweb, Gbooks, Gnews that I can find save for wikimirrors, I also worked tracing using autotranslation tools and other strategies to try and find info from the Arabic WP, but I don't know Arabic and it is possible that my strategies may have not been adaquate.

Unsourced for 2+ years.

Unless sources can be found (which would be great), I rec redirect to Prince Talal bin Muhammad#Personal life, which contains all the information in the primary text of this information. I do not recommend deletion without the redirect, there are quite a few "family tree" links to this article. (I could have boldly made the move myself, but I thought I'd appeal for another set of eyes first instead.) j⚛e deckertalk 05:45, 18 July 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. clear consensus that article fails to meet notability guidelines and even WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC... etc. etc. JForget 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma (band)[edit]

Dogma (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that appears to have made little impact in the media, One release only (dec 2009), no awards, significant reviews, books, biographical news articles or other things I can find from reliable sources. The only link given on this, and our sister wiki's, article is the band's website. Peripitus (Talk) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the following information is available on the www.armenianpulse.com website:
Contributing Writers: We have several independent or freelance writers working at Armenian Pulse, :including contributing writers from other sites.
Editor in Chief: Harout Kalandjian
Senior Writer: Ruth Power
Staff Writer: Elliott Hale Carrington
Contributing Writers: Paul Chaderjian, Liana Aghajanian, Vasken Aramian
as long as no-one has a justified reason to doubt this information, www.armenianpulse.com should be treated as a trustable review site, and not a "blog", as the content is provided by a variety of editors with centralized organization and control.
Also, if you carefully read Jethro Tull's website, Dogma was not a guest or support act, but rather some members of it performed together with Jethro Tull (i.e. were on stage at the same time).
Similarly, http://www.rocktheborders.com is a review site with multiple editors, so it's reliability should only be questioned if there's good cause to do so. Articles about Rock bands on wikipedia aren't in general "sensitive topics" with high potential for fraud so we shouldn't immediately assume that independent third-party sites might intentionally provide misinformation. Also, I strongly disagree with the "no significant content" claim with regards to Dogma's entry on rocktheborders. Hence, I believe, that if those are the best that can be found, notability IS established. DubZog (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability must be established not assumed. Same goes for notability. All articles on wikipedia are required to establish notability and use verifiable sources. www.rocktheborders.com only contains a single paragraph within what appears to be a directory, this isn't considered significant coverage and i see no evidence that the site is of any standing or peer reviewed, half to site isn't even complete and hasn't been updated since 2008. I'd suggest the site is likely defunct. --neon white talk 22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be serious. No wikipedia editor will have the time, or indeed a chance to follow the working-process of any newspaper or website that is used as a source of an article, so inevitably, common (and indeed the only existing) practise is to assume sources to be reliable if they LOOK to be reliable, provided there is no reason to believe in the contrary. If we chose to label an online publication with multiple centrally organized editors as "unreliable" we should also do that to the vast majority of printed journals and newspapers, and confine ourselves entirely to academic sources. However, this way wikipedia would lose a great deal (perhaps even the majority?) of its articles and stop being what it is today. Hence, using www.armenianpulse.com as the foundation, and the other listed sources as support, I believe we could do exactly what you asked for: establish the notability and verifiability of the topic. DubZog (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what is required here in order to establish notability. There is a big difference between established newspapers and peer reviewed journals and small independent review websites. --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that a media source can only be considered reliable if wikipedia editors have inside information regarding its working process unavailable to the general public? Because mind you, only scientific journals publishing primary original content are peer-reviewed as such... all other media articles are only reviewed internally within the organization, and the extent to which this is done is only fully known to people working in the organization. The only difference between established newspapers and journals, and small independent review websites is that more people know about the former than the latter. To say that as a result of that, the former are more reliable than the latter is prejudice. Please also see my comment on reliable sources later on in the discussion. DubZog (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could you possibly say NO third party sources in light of my comments about www.armenianpulse.com ? Let's go through this again... it's a site with multiple editors and an editor hierarchy system, so just as reliable as well... the vast majority of journals or newspapers. DubZog (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all irrelevant it has no reputation for music reporting. Compare it to such sources as Rolling Stone, NME, etc --neon white talk 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what's irrelevant is the comparison to Rolling Stone or NME. Preferring sources from the western cultural space to those from outside it is an act of introducing a systematic bias to Wikipedia, and even leaving this aside, whether a source is reliable or not does not depend on how it compares to some other sources that are available, but on the nature of the source itself ONLY. Only the very top end of the bands of the world get regularly reviewed by largely US and UK dominated "international" magazines, yet far far more are of significant national importance in other parts of the world and easily meet and surpass the general notability criteria. DubZog (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian politics (index)[edit]

Christian politics (index) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only contains a dozen or so articles and not all of them are clearly political. Anything meaningful is already or can be adequately covered in Christianity and politics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 18 July 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dorsey[edit]

Thomas Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with only two articles. It makes more sense to have disambiguation links at the top of each article, which already exist. This page could redirect to Thomas A. Dorsey who is the most frequently used search for Thomas Dorsey, or that article could be relocated here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Forever (soundtrack)[edit]

Hannah Montana Forever (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unable to find confirmation of the existence in reliable sources and there are no references in the article confirming existence. Most likely will be released eventually but, at this time, it's WP:CRYSTAL. The article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax, but speedy was declined as it wasn't vandalism. Even the article's infobox image is a hoax. Despite a license tag that says it's a "cover of an audio recording", it can't be, as no recording exists and the image is most likely a Disney promotional image for Hannah Montana (season 4). Even the article creator admits that this isn't a current recording.[14] AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ryker[edit]

Andrew Ryker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rykerbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod. Subject is American wrestler. I believe the subject is a minor wrestler not notable enough for inclusion. Fails WP:ATH and WP:BIO as he has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:55, 18 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice (US band)[edit]

Solstice (US band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put your money where your mouth is (idiom)[edit]

Look up put one's money where one's mouth is in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Put your money where your mouth is (idiom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Battleaxe9872 Talk 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it was a good faith mistake by the nominator. Claritas § 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Morrison McGill[edit]

Ross Morrison McGill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline, the general biographical notability guideline and the educator biographical notability guideline. Only coverage is a mention in a list of English educator awards in 2004 here, which does not strike me as a sufficiently prestigious award to warrant inclusion. Linkedin profile is here, and there is also a mention in a school newsletter here. No Google News results (see archive search here).   -- Lear's Fool 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 18 July 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 Not-delete. Discussion on merging, moving, etc. can be continued on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment[edit]

3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is too specific and the information in this article could be rightly found elsewhere. The article was previously tagged with a PROD but the author removed it, and expanded the article based on the concerns I raised. I'm listing it here because of the overall concern of a small, potentially non-notable article and I would like consensus on the potential deletion. elektrikSHOOS 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Big text[reply]

-- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other source - 173rd Airborne Brigade: Sky Soldiers works fine for me and recounts the illustrious history of this battery, including various unit citations, records and other distinctions. Please try again as this source discusses the unit in some detail and indicates that it is special. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its been nominated for deletion also. [20] Dream Focus 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also expanded this with Lineage and Honors certificate. Sadads (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This battalion is pretty exceptional, see the decorations that I added from their lineage. Sadads (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decorations done, bibliography on talk page, do what you will, Sadads (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also moved the page per the unit's lineage designation (which is the official name, though some may call it airborne). Sadads (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any more is needed to prove sufficient keep value, I copied the CMH bibliography up at Talk:319th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), for future research and if anyone else wants to go diving for more to fill out the narrative. Sadads (talk) 15:00, 23 July 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. I originally closed it as delete, but since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Network Ten slogans closed as keep, I think it best to treat the set of articles consistently since they basically present the same issue. T. Canens (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seven Network slogans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Seven Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 18 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nine Network slogans[edit]

List of Nine Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 18 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC slogans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of NBC slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 18 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS slogans[edit]

List of CBS slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 18 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABC slogans[edit]

List of ABC slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boutiq[edit]

Boutiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Animation/film production company. Unable to find sources to indicate notability per WP:COMPANY; also appears to fail WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 18 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fall (film)[edit]

Free Fall (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Chevytruck1500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A television movie "depicting fictional air crashes of Trans Regional Airlines". Article has no sources and cannot find any. Seems to fail WP:NFILMS. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 18 July 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 Lamon Records. JForget 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevating Entertainment[edit]

Elevating Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lrcee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "Contested" prod. Subject is film production company that appears non-notable. References discuss films the company has made so not entirely on topic. No sources for the company itself. Few Google hits. Massive COI and SPA problem. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the assertion that the company is non-notable.
- Principals of the company are well known industry professionals in Nashville (country, acoustic, and christian music) with over 30 years in the entertainment industry and have expanded into family film production over the past four years. Linking to them does not make this a COI. Have added new articles that also discuss the company.
- Dove Foundation is by far one of the industry's leading reviewer of films for family audiences and they have recommended two movies produced by the company with their Family Approved Seal. (http://www.dove.org)
- International distributor of company's films "Moving Pictures Film and Television" is a well known foreign film distributor exhibiting at Cannes Marche de Film, American Film Market (AFM), Toronto Film Festival, etc is run by former Sony and Loinsgate executes. (http://movingpicturesfilmandtv.com)
- Company is included in the Screen Actors Guide (SAG) indie index reference as a production company in Tennessee. (http://www.sagindie.org/directory/tennessee-101-producer.html)
- Company has worked with leading actors in the industry, including Rob Schnieder (IMDb STARmeter 250), John de Lancie (IMDb 5000), Catherine Hicks (IMDb 2500), Rance Howard (IMDb 5000), Margaret O'Brien (IMDb 3000), Lee Meriwether (IMDb 4000), Bill Cobbs (IMDb 4000), and many others featured in the company's productions. Company has new projects in pre-production. All actor's credits clearly recognized by Internet Movie Database for the films produced. IMDb STARMeter info is available here: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

Sorry, misread the instructions when first deleted the warning header... thought it said the tag could be removed with a note. I am the article's original creator. Lrcee (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Lrcee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't appear to discuss the subject at all? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the USA Today article is about Christian films, but there is no mention of this company that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions a lot of things, but none relevant here. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 21 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Bagci[edit]

Baris Bagci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced only to imdb. Otherwise appears non signficiant. Melanesian obsession (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 18 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Biazzi[edit]

Mauricio Biazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or the GNG. There's some level of WP:V present, 4 hits in Google news reflect passing mentions in lists of musicians within articles, but none are "signficant" coverage, no secondary independent coverage I could find in Books or Web either. Unsourced for over two years. j⚛e deckertalk 19:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 18 July 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 Bobby Orlando. JForget 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby O & His Banana Republic[edit]

Bobby O & His Banana Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an album by Bobby O that has questionable notability. The only source is tracklist information. Cannot find evidence that subject is notable. SPA. Recommend redirect to artist. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 18 July 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Trilogy[edit]

CSI: Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off, why does it use [[Template:Infobox Television]]? as if it was it's own series when it is just a compilation of episodes from the three main television series? No references or sources exist on the article and is better off being merged with the CSI franchise article. CrackedLeo (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that the title can be misleading with the CSI (franchise) article. CrackedLeo (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we already have a list of CSI episodes? CrackedLeo (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have lists of CSI episodes, but they're separate(a list for each show). This page covers a multi-part series that had an one episode in all three(at least, that's the impression I get from the page). I think we can keep it, but it definitely needs to be cleaned up. Loiathal (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better split into three separate pages, because I'm not finding a lot of sources that discuss this as a single entity. This is more of a single editor identifying storylines that crossover and making a single page out of it. The reviews are going to individual episodes, so that's probably how it should be kept.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read about Fictional crossover. And this is officially such a fictional crossover of three shows, not an idea of some user.--Avala (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 18 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Limit Kids[edit]

No Limit Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lrcee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is a film of questionable notability. The article itself is spammy and promotional. The reviews and sources come from questionable locations and could not find any reliable sources. Blatant SPA and COI issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the assertion that the film is non-notable.
- Principals of the company behind the film are well known industry professionals in Nashville (country, acoustic, and christian music) with over 30 years in the entertainment industry and have expanded into family film production over the past four years. Linking to them does not make this a COI in our option.
- Dove Foundation is arguably the industry's leading reviewer of films for family audiences and used by many Hollywood studios (Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, etc) as a means to rate and recommend films with the the Dove Family Approved Seal. They have recommended this film with a five star rating for family audiences. (http://www.dove.org)
- International distributor of this film "Moving Pictures Film and Television" is a well known foreign film distributor run by former Sony and Loinsgate executes. (http://movingpicturesfilmandtv.com)
- Gideon Film Festival is a leading family film festival and media arts conference held in NC with screenings and workshops by leading directors and producers in the genre. (http://gideonfilmfestival.com)
- KIDS FIRST! Film Festival is a ten year old, year-long event in 150 cities sponsored by the Coalition for Quality Children's Media Entertainment. Absolutely disagree that their review is "spammy", "questionable" and "not reliable" as their reviews and festival screenings are widely-recognized in the industry as a source for hi-quality family films.
- Marketing of the film is by Propeller Consulting, a leader in children's consumer products with over $1 billion in sales to their credit. (http://flypropeller.com)
- Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriwether are noteable and award winning actors. (Star meter IMDb usually 4000 or less.) Their credits are clearly recognized by Internet Movie Database as performers in this film.

Sorry, misread the instructions when first deleted the warning header... thought it said the tag could be removed with a note. Still relatively new to Wiki. I am the article's original creator. Lrcee (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Lrcee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Lrcee, I'm crossing out the word "keep" from your comment above, because you already said "keep" in an earlier comment. You are welcome to comment here as much as you want, but you only get one "vote". --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Additional comment: I didn't know whether it would be appropriate to add an WP:SPA tag to Lrcee or not. He/she/they are the author of this page, but they are not new here, and this is not their only topic. They have been contributing to Wikipedia for 2 1/2 years. But in all that time, EVERY SINGLE edit has been related to Dave Moody and his businesses Lamon Records and Elevating Entertainment. Make of this what you will. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Film is released. WP:V Quick search of outlets including Amazon, Deeper Shopping, many others all show DVD available and in-stock. More on Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriwether -- TwoRiversWC (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the release date in the box (October 2010 is incorrect? Peridon (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the infobox "release date" is wrong. The movie is available now on DVD through various outlets, soundtrack will be available in August as an mp3/download at Amazon.com. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 20 July 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) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Karvers[edit]

Arkham Karvers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to be non-notable band. Has played supporting roles for other bands. There are a number of references though these are minimal, non-notable, local etc. and don't believe coverage is enough. Possibly borderline but favour deletion. Also created by SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 18 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eren E[edit]

Eren E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Contested" prod. Subject appears to be a non-notable music producer who produced many of Imran Khan's work. Most links are social networking sites/own websites. There's an interview on desi-box.com that refers to "First ever interview". [31] The interview itself states "Not many people will have heard about the artist that we’re going to be interviewing today but mark my words this is the beginning of something very big for this man." This doesn't strike me as someone notable enough for inclusion. Few Google hits. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 18 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Abdul Razaq[edit]

Shahid Abdul Razaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has survived PROD and Speedy Deletion attempts but I think it needs to be looked at again. There is no clear statement of notability although there are claims that could confer notability if they were made more specific and backed up by references. Currently, the only reference does not look like a reliable source and does not seem to have any information about Razaq anyway. This means that we also have a problem with verifiability.

I have tried Googling for his name (although only in English), including the different spellings and leaving out the first name, and not found anything relevant (although there are other people with the same name). The only Afghan I can find of that name is a Taliban field commander called Abdul Razaq[32] who I assume to be a different person. It may be a sad irony that a Taliban Commander is more notable than a peace activist but we can't have articles on non-notable people even if they are praiseworthy. DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 18 July 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. NW (Talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow (2010 film)[edit]

Sparrow (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for unreleased movie does not meet notability guidelines in WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILM | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment unfair. Please take a look at the page for Natalie Portman, who has four films in post-production, all of which are listed on wikipedia. Keith1234 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Keith1234, please read WP:WAX. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 18 July 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 Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. JForget 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy renomination due to lack of sufficient participation in previous debate to determine consensus. Novel which does not meet WP:NB or WP:GNG - it's a book in a series with no notability inherited from that series. Carolyn Keene is not an author but a pseudonym used by 10 or more authors, and the author of this novel is not considered notable enough to have an article for him/herself. Therefore, criterion 5 does not apply, and I don't see how it can meet any of the other criteria - there's very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 11:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 18 July 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. enough consensus that he fails notability guidelines JForget 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Weingarten[edit]

Rob Weingarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any sources to establish notability Hallucegenia (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 18 July 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) 04:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crew clothing[edit]

Crew clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable clothing brand. Article hardly has any citations. However, there is a list of store locations in the article body. Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 04:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 18 July 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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Posner[edit]

Tracy Posner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. Notability is not inherited, and this appears to be little more than an advertisement for her charity. RayTalk 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think again. WP:GNG states "that sources address the subject directly in detail so no original research is needed to extract the content". She has received that and then some in all the citations provided. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)R[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/haringey/schools/alexandra-park/web/newsletters/newsletter_no_9_06to07.pdf
More