The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship[edit]

IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship (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 speedy claiming sources this time and no sources last time. Doesn't change the fact that this title is not notable. Sources are not independent of the subject (ie there's nothing outside of NZPWI which takes up all bar two of the sources - not good enough). Previously deleted for lack of notability and should go again under DB-Repost. !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Sources make no difference if the content is the same. It's primarily a list so just proving title changes happened doesn't change the root notability issue. Speedy. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's hard to know whether it's a speedy G4 or not, since the provision is that "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" which makes it essentially useless (You know why I can't compare this to the deleted version? Because it was DELETED!! Duh!!) However, there's no notability established, since the only sources are the IPWNZ website. Mandsford 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not going speedy because last time I voted delete the fed wasn't notable. The fed appears to be now, but that doesn't mean this title is. Mal Case (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. No independent third party coverage. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 10:49, 28 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. Title will be salted, as well. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformice[edit]

Transformice (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 browser-based game. No independent references, nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Weak Keep: These are one of those things where the subject looks like it's "rising" in fame. I would delete, but in this case, it's just going to be a matter of time before this request becomes inrelevent. The-magicJack (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — The-magicJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Just to comment on this, please note that what may happen is not a criterion for inclusion. We can always restore the article later. (I am not commenting on the merits of this particular article, only on the above !vote.) --Chris (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The-magicJack has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. andy (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: clearly fails WP:N Likeminas (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Google only turns up blogs and no reliable sources. Let's wait until it has indeed 'risen' in fame. Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS by a mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remake this article if it gets deleted. you better expect that you jerks :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does it, expect people to be coming in here to save this article when I make a topic about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. They'll get the SPA tag, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete waste of everyone's time, you'd be better off looking for reliable sources, people coming here and screaming "keep as I really enjoy this game" will make absolutely no difference to this AFD, only reliable sources will do that. As for recreating the article, we can lock the article against that and blacklist the website (so it's automatically removed by our wiki software). You can't play hardball when you have nothing to play with. So to 'win', you need to find reliable sources and add them to the article, it is the only way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was originally CSD'd as A7. As there was an established history/evolutionary path put forward that spanned a number of years, I considered that to be enough notability to survive CSD, but I had changed it to a PROD. I'm not overly surprised to find it here at AfD. However, I warn the article proponent that "I promise to make it again if deleted" is usually the surest invitation to WP:SALT the article to ever prevent re-creation, and if this article is indeed deleted, I recommend create-protection based on the above "threat". I also remind them that WP:CSD permits the immediate deletion of any article that is essentially similar to one recently deleted in a community AfD discussion. Notability guidelines are important to this project. You have a chance to fix it: about 6 days, in fact. Stop whining and threatening, and try to actually fix it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also WP:SALT — raekyT 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are only blog reviews. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of any significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and Strongly consider salting given this "offer" Codf1977 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Codf1977 and Strongly Endorse salting due to ongoing ANI and above comment. Deltwalrus (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and WP:NEXTBIGTHING, add a little WP:SALT for flavour. ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep can this article be saved looking at ALEXA ranks? also the youtube video Meet the mouse that boosted the game popularity has got more than 300.000 views.
  I agree there aren't much 3rd party sources but I like the game :-).--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I got also a general question a game published and sold on a physical support is more notable and deserves an article more than an oline game with more players?--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa rank, youtube views and distrubution method are only relevent if they've been commented on by reliable sources - so it's all back to WP:N, really. Marasmusine (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. A very close paraphrase of http://genome.wustl.edu/people/mardis_elaine, which is clearly marked as non-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Mardis[edit]

Elaine Mardis (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)

Potentially non-notable, written by an author with a potential COI, contains close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. elektrikSHOOS 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear failure of WP:ACADEMIC. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also include (for the same reasons):

• George Weinstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Timothy Ley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete as clear failure of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created this page from content that I wrote but it is being flagged as too similar to other content on the web (which I also wrote). I have also added further references and selected publications to denote notability. How do I prevent deletion of this entry? --Gremerow (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on grounds of copyright infringement despite subject passing WP:Prof cites in spades. One of several articles on the The Genome Center written by the communications coordinator. Such practices are apt to end in tears. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helidon Gjergji[edit]

Helidon Gjergji (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 fails WP:BIO thus WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that the article's creator ([[Materials2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)]]) only contributions to Wikipedia have been linking this article to other pages. Which also seems to be in violation of WP:SPIP for self-promotion. Likeminas (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There may well be some self-promotion going on. However this artist appears to be notable. There are articles about him. His work has been included in major exhibitions such as the Venice Biennale as noted in the previous Italian language source and confirmed here. Unfortunately, none of the books are viewable in a google book search, but the snippets in the results indicate he does receive coverage. I am satisified that additional sourcing is available and notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is not well referenced, but there are plenty of sources and articles on him to determine notability. Clearly passes wp:artist. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tag with cite and expand templates, but subject is fully notable. Just another bad article on a good topic: no cause for nuking. Sources are not hugely obvious, mostly academic & art related, but they're plentiful. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Exhibition record established notability easily. Other issues can be dealt with as necessary. freshacconci talktalk 01:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per inclusion in Venice Biennale and other shows. Needs work. Ty 17:43, 29 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. A discussion on whether to redirect/merge/etc. can be pursued on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dive bar[edit]

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

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

This appears to be a dictionary definition. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary gives some guidance, and one suggestion is that such definitions are merged or redirected to the nearest article on the topic. Drinking establishment seems to be the most appropriate redirect, where a definition of dive is given. One difficultly in giving a definition is that there is no formal agreement, as the term itself is slang and somewhat vague. There are no reliable sources talking directly about the concept of "dive bar", though there are sources which use the term, which does indicate that it is "slang, jargon or usage" rather than an encyclopaedic topic. SilkTork *^YES! 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NOT. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain I wrote most of this definition myself and did not consult any dictionary when I did it. This article has been on Wikipedia for over five years. It meaningful, informative, and a significant contribution to content in the area of alcoholic beverages, drinking establishments, and drinking culture. "Dive" in this meaning has an entry in NOAD2, where the word is classified as "informal" -- not as slang or jargon.Wahrmund (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article needs work but it can be expanded and improved to meet WP standards. Likeminas (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a slang term, but a recognized category of watering hole. the_undertow ^talk 02:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dicdef or redirect to Bar (establishment). Evidence that this is not a coherent topic can be found in the Google Books results, where the term seems to be impossible to pin down, with each person who writes about "dive bars" offering his or her own idiosyncratic view of what constitutes one. Deor (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bar (establishment). Deor has a point. I read the article and I still don't know WTF a "dive bar" is. If somebody can pin it down then a standalone article can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ron, I can't find any indication that this is a term that is worthy of an article in its own right. A redirect would be especially useful if there were a section on dive bars in Bar (establishment). (This, of course, assumes that a well-sourced and more clear description can be presented.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Redirect – a dive bar is a significant recognized genre (low-end neighborhood bar; in the US, where patrons drink PBR, not microbrews); quibbles aside, let’s not fall into Loki's Wager. Could be expanded to a reasonable article as per fern bar with a little work, in current state better suited to a section in Bar (establishment). —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Specific and notable genre, as explained by User: Nbarth. I added a source to the article.--PinkBull 02:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's more than a dicdef. It is a real term, and describes a real thing, granted that it is somewhat slangy, but what do you want when addressing the demimonde? Notable, referenced, worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 30 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. Half spam, half copyvio. —fetch·comms 01:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OriginOil[edit]

OriginOil (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. The creator added a coatrack essay about depleting oil supplies, then added "impartial references" supporting the facts laid out in the essay, but neither the essay nor the references mention OriginOil. As far as references go, all I could find were press releases and trivial mentions. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a strong taint of WP:SOAP about this article and, as it stands, the subject company fails WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search revealed that a major part of the article has been lifted from the company website. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:08, 26 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. Call it "one user who has blanked the page". See this discussion and this message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ManagePro[edit]

ManagePro (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)

Original author of this is a suspected sockpuppet. So I don't want to be part of this. Pm master 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —fetch·comms 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Man[edit]

Janice Man (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 no reliable independent sources. It describes a generic publicity-seeker. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see that WP:ENT is being followed with regard to significant roles. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fifty pages of vomit-inducing GNews hits from major newspapers such as Ming Pao about her every move, outfit, catfight with other models, etc.: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I won't dispute the nominator's description of her as a "publicity seeker", but she rises well above the level of "generic", having taken advantage of all that publicity from her modelling to land major roles in Hong Kong movies. I added a few citations; will keep working on it later. cab (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in the area per above, although wouldn't deny her as publicity seeker as that's pretty much all she does (personal opinion). Dengero (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per apparently overwheming the WP:GNG with coverage since 2002.[1] With the sheer number of sources available, one might conclude that concerns with style, tone, or sourcing can be improved though regular editing... and will simply take a bit of work and someone proficiant in translating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cidco MailStation[edit]

Cidco MailStation (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 a single reference given. WP:SPA user created this page. No importance asserted. Reads more like WP:ADVERT, and includes sections written in a how-to tone. — Timneu22 · talk 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: CIDCO Inc is up for CSD; this article (being a product and not a corporation) cannot qualify as speedy. — Timneu22 · talk 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet it got speedy deleted anyway. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs a tidy-up but the product pre-dates a similar concept, the Amstrad E-m@iler, which has its own article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, spam, one of several spam articles being created by this user. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see how this is spam. the product isn't available for sale any more. The article cites one article about the product. There are many reviews of the product for a a wide variety of sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] are just some. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Whpq. Hobit (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the page has a link to the "purchase page" on Amazon. — Timneu22 · talk 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - which I easily fixed by removing it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Links provided by User: Whpq demonstate that the product is notable. As the product is obsolete there should not be any spam concerns--PinkBull 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, I guess. Whpq's refs are not overwhelming, but they are real. Not spam, as product is obsolete. Marginally notable. 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George William (actor)[edit]

George William (actor) (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 can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources or any other evidence that this man meets notability guidelines. I can't find anything by searching his name and the title of the play mentioned. IMDb (his filmography, not his resume used in the article) lists only a director and cinematographer credit for a straight-to-video film. Band article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our Souls. BelovedFreak 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 22:15, 22 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)

(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)

• Delete Alternate searches using assertions in the article find nothing. Fails WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I guess, but those searches are worthless. It needs to be stuff like George Freund "Tony Poppa Music", or maybe no quotes at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might even be "Poppa Tony Music", that's what's on his Myspace page. Anyway:

    (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)

    "george freund" poppa tony music -wikipedia

    "george william" +poppa +tony music -wikipedia

    "Last Day of the Hate Bombs" -wikipedia

    "george freund" "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" -wikipedia

    "george williams" "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" -wikipedia etc. --BelovedFreak 08:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here is something that might be help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.0.151 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for that, but what we really need is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A resume isn't really enough.--BelovedFreak 16:48, 29 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 Arguments for delete appear to be more policy based than arguments for keep. Arguments such as "can't we make an exception" are not a good basis for making encycolpedic entries that may have serious synthesis issues. Wikipedia is not a place for original research as has been spelled out here. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, and Lingua Franca Nova[edit]

Comparison of Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, and Lingua Franca Nova (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)

Blatant WP:OR; not a single source given; reads like WP:ESSAY. Probably not an encyclopedic topic anyway. — Timneu22 · talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Blatant WP:OR" and "reads like WP:Essay" clearly personal opinions without evidence. Notice added minutes after initial posting, prior to completion! BasilDickswell (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for BasilDickswell. The article has been labelled as 'original research' and 'essay' because it completely omits any references to third-party, reliable sources. They were not personal opinions but pointers to non-compliance with Wiki protocol. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - for the article creator, or anyone else: Can you cite sources that discuss the similarities of these various languages? If so, that would help us satisfy the verifiability requirement and to show that this work does not constitute original research. LadyofShalott 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist on each pages describing each language. There is not much discussion of differences on this page; it is almost entirely a side by side presentation of information presented in other articles. I see most of those articles need more sources, but that's not a failing of this article. If there was discussion of the differences, that would require sources, but I don't see any of that. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ambivalent. This is a useful article to be sure but MUST comply with WP:RS to avoid deletion as original research. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have an opinion on the deletion, but if it survives perhaps renaming it would be a good idea. The languages chosen here represent a pretty good spectrum of the types of IALs there are out there, from extreme regularity in Esperanto and Ido to extreme naturalism in Interlingua, Novial is an attempt to bridge the two and was created by the famous linguist Otto Jespersen, while Lingua Franca Nova is an example of a somewhat different approach that focuses on a more creole-like grammar and an approximation of a spoken language (note the lack of h in words such as otel in an imitation of existing Romance languages whereas others will usually bring the h back and pronounce it) instead of starting with a written language and going from there. Incorporating this into another article before deleting it (assuming it does get deleted) might be best. Mithridates (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last sentence sounds like "merge and redirect". Is that a fair reading of your opinion? LadyofShalott 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My (nominator) thought: maybe merge anything useful, but no redirect. This is certainly an implausible redirect (r3) — Timneu22 · talk 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this article different from the other comparisons in wikipedia, other than being less biased and more inclusive? How is this "original research" when it consists of nothing more than accurate information easily available from the references listed? BasilDickswell (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The Wiki protocol is clear enough. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". What you have done is to combine material in such a way as to advance a position that the individual websites you have referenced do not support. Now, if you had quoted an academic study of the languages in question then the article has validity as it is no longer "original research". Eddie.willers (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. BasilDickswell (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Seems like WP:OR and synthesis to me, unless reliable sources are provided, this article shall be deleted. Anyway, the selection of specific IAL languages was arbitrary (Where is volapuk?), so I moved it to a new title who includes all IAL languages (though the article's still only about 5 languages) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new title is fine. My intention was to add several other IALs. However, I did not include Volapük because I wanted to present a comparison of several viable IALs, not every IAL ever invented - an impossible task. "Viable" is, of course, a value judgement. Debate on that issue would be welcome! BasilDickswell (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:BasilDickswell has no other edits but this AfD and the page in question. The user has also been blocked due to violation of username policy. — Timneu22 · talk 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevance? BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timneu22 now has charged me with "sockpuppetry" (which I am frankly not familiar with). I was not aware that I needed to use my actual name. I assume that many of you do not. I was forced to change my name by a bot. I guess it responds automatically to "dick" - which leaves an awful lot of Richards in the lurch. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the aggressive attitude of Mr. Timneu22. If this is the standard operating procedure of the bureaucracy of wikipedia, I have had enough. All I intended to do was to add a useful article on a subject in which I am interested and knowledgeable. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your questions:
      1. There is no agressive attitude, and no bureaucracy.
      2. I patrol new pages. This page had no references which means it seems like WP:OR. So I nominated it for deletion, per the WP:AFD policies.
      3. "Dick swell" in your previous username was banned as offensive.
      4. "Diggs well" seems like an attempt at the previous offensive name.
    • That's all. We'll see how the sockpuppetry case works. In the meantime, if you have constructive references to add to the article, that will help avoid deletion. — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I simply used the name of a series of baronets named Basil Dixwell, which was a featured article in wikipedia. I misspelled it, which was perhaps fortunate in that it is someone else's name. I then replaced the cks with ggs to avoid the prurient implication. Apparently some find things in names that others miss.
      • You tagged the article within minutes of my posting it. I therefore had no time to edit, add references, etc. That is what appears aggressive to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• But let's get back to the issues: I haven't heard a response to my point above. To reiterate:
  • The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the issue: it doesn't matter that I tagged the article minutes after creation, you have had more than a day to add references, yet none exist. External links and "further reading" don't cut it. Inline citations are helpful, if the added external links are relevant to providing WP:RS. The issue here is that there isn't a reference (or, there wasn't) in the article. That's the issue. Who cares when it was tagged? Add the refs, and it's likely that the article will be kept. Period. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. — Timneu22 · talk 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As for "who cares when it was tagged", we do encourage people not to bite the newbies. I think Mr. Diggswell has been well bitten. Tagging for OR and being unreferenced and seeing if there were any response to that before running to AfD might have been reasonable. LadyofShalott 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a well written and useful article, especially considering its youth. Although there aren't enough sources here, the topic of this page is clearly notable as evidenced by the contents of "See Also" from this article. Keeping this article allows wikipedians who abhor OR to constructively add references. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on policy for sourcing comparisons. This information is being taken from grammars such as ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}. Is it appropriate to cite specific sections of each of these grammars every time information about a language is introduced? Adding these sources as "External links" seems better to me because it's cleaner, but seems to run contrary to policy. I am adding sources to this article. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: if the article is kept this title should certainly be deleted as an implausible redirect. (The article was renamed since the AfD was created.) — Timneu22 · talk 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A rudimentary reading of the article indicates that it may violate Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH policy, but the topic is unfamiliar to me so I'm refraining from officially voting.--PinkBull 02:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know to what extent its WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but to the extent that it is, can't we make an exception? Certainly seems the sort of article that one would expect to find in an an encyclopedia. Adds to the sum of useful knowledge in the encyclopedia, does it not?. Do we really have to get rid of articles like this but keep "Phineas & Ferb's Summer Vacation" or whatever? If so, that is demoralizing to readers like me. It's not like the article has an axe to grind or a point to make. It's just presenting facts. And the facts are referenced. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 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 deletion. (WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry A nanny[edit]

Terry A nanny (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 real notability here; some claims are made but no sources provided. Not convinced that this person is actually significant. — Timneu22 · talk 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article was previously deleted via AFD 2 years ago (see also deletion log). I wondered why the space in the name. I don't know if this is significantly different from that version or if it would qualify for speedy deletion under G4.--BelovedFreak 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You might want to look at this: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny. I've been dealing with this for years. The odd spelling of the article name is because "Terry Ananny" has been salted. freshacconci talktalk 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite wise of you to know this. I have added a delete tag with your reasoning. We'll see how it goes. — Timneu22 · talk 22:32, 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 Speedily deleted by User:Athaenara per article creator's request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janique Rice[edit]

Janique Rice (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 does not satisfy WP:ENT. No notability, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the construction of the article was incorrect. However notability has been estabished with links to proven forms of published work. As well as over 30 published videos of a regular feature on a national cable network-Home Shopping Network. All links should be properly evaluated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr04j (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not ability has not been established. Not only does this read like a resume, it actually cites a resume-like website.— Timneu22 · talk 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How can I delete the post myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr04j (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have probably seen by now, it has been deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:08, 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. Already adequately covered in the episode list. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Faithful[edit]

The Faithful (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 television episode. No independent reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this particular episode. What few sources exist are passing mentions in articles about the series or TV Guide-style program listings. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT and probably violates copyright with the extensive quotes section. Since the episode is covered in sufficient detail in the season 1 article and since ambiguous name is far from the most common meaning of this term, no merge and no redirect is required. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), which may or may not require keeping this as a redirect in some form. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no useful content, as the cast information and a more comprehensive plot overview already exist in the season 1 article, and neither the trivia section nor the quote farm should be retained regardless of what happens to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The episode is already covered in the episode list within Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), can't see anything that needs merging, that being the case a redirect isn't necessary either (I doubt the term The Faithful is most strongly associated with an episode of Law & Order). Someoneanother 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has no particular notability which would place it outside the full season episode guide. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:44, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers by establishment date[edit]

List of newspapers by establishment date (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 not very strong and not enough data Yougo1000 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - while I have no strong feelings about this list, neither "not very strong" nor "not enough data" are valid deletion reasons. Also note that this is actually the first nomination for this article. In creating the AFD nominator somehow made it appear there was a previous one. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep although indeed not completely developed yet, I think this article is relevant enough. Collaboration to develop articles from stub to better is what Wikipedia is all about. Agree with Otto4711 that no valid deletion ground is given. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date which was opened at the same time because the nominator made some mistakes. Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is not very strong and has not enough data. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. The subject, presented as a list, has it's own encyclopedic value. No questions about. However, I share the nominator's concern about contents: such lists makes sense when they are more or less complete and unbiased. No London Gazette? Why? Does the modern concept of universality (sic) apply to the 17th century? East of Borschov 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "London Gazette" was originally published as "Oxford Gazette" and it already appears in the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, if you allow some leeway for the broadening of the range of topics overtime, and don't fall into the anachronistic trap of judging the ancient Athenian democracy in terms of the modern democracy. The implicit benchmark, mentioned in the lead, is obviously the forerunner of the Avviso which heavily concentrated on economic news. So, yes, in comparison to these handsheets, the earliest newspaper were comparatively universal in their scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • London gazette added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep, it meets every requirement for an almanac type list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just in case my input on the first nomination page isn't counted here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well sourced and significant.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be two concurrent AfDs for this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date. ThemFromSpace 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasons given by nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 25 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 Userfied. Userfied per author's request TFOWR 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E:List of Teams named after a sponsor[edit]

The C of E:List of Teams named after a sponsor (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)

• Improperly referenced, improperly named, should be deleted per WP:IINFO. elektrikSHOOS 20:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's my attempt at userfication, can you move it into a more appropriate namespace? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:33, 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. After disregarding the input of socks Courcelles (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solairus Aviation[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Solairus Aviation (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)

Advertisement for a non-notable charter company that fails the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Sources are from the corporate website and press releases. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Addressing the three line items in the deletion notice, the article now has corrected and additional references to third party publications, the most recent addition being an article located at http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/22537/petaluma-based-solairus-aircraft-on-growth-trajectory/?tc=ar

The company is highly notable in the aviation services industry as indicated by the amount of coverage in industry publications and news alerts. Especially notable are the company's executive staff who have long been considered pillars of the business aviation industry.

The article has also been purged of puffery and has been limited to the objective facts. Zachobrien1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I edited the fleet text to have a more neutral voice and I eliminated the services offered section which did seem like an advertisement. Additionally, the company is very notable in the business aviation industry. These types of companies do not get a lot of mainstream attention, but they are actually quite well known in the luxury goods market. EWildt Note: EWildt is the author of the article and is a Special Purpose Account. User is currently blocked for running sockpuppets here.

• Keep Thanks for providing an additional reference Zachobrien1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWildt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your "keep" opinion was established in an earlier post. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAdded another third-party reference. Hope it helps!!! JaneCoff —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment JaneCoff (talk · contribs) and Zachobrien1 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sockpuppets of EWildt (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EWildt). VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Considering the sox, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm disappointed that sockpuppetry had to come into play here, but the article looks to have a fair amount of notability in it. This, this, this and this are all examples of independent reliable coverage, of which the first three at least would qualify as significant. The only issue could be WP:NOTNEWS, but since the sources all refer to different events that shouldn't be an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted those articles as press releases authored by the company; it sounds like their source may be technically independent from the company. They are very industry-specific (and in the case of the second article local); do they show that the company has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education"? VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the refs cited are all company, the refs mentioned above all look like press releases to me. The article looks like a COI attempt to promote the company, at least up until the most recent edits on it. If kept it would require a serious rewrite and removal of corpspam material. Fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• RELUCTANT KEEP Considering that not all the refrences cited are company propaganda, this company is notable as a "start-up" but I agree with AHunt that WP:COI is involved and a rewrite is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - just one of many aircraft charter brokers, cant find any reliable references that it actually own any aircraft just manages and charters. Not a new start just a re-named 1990s company. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just another aviation company using WP to tout for business. I agree with MilborneOne, it appears be be just a broker with no aircraft of its own. Of the four "independent" references cited and referred to by Alzarian 16, the first, third and fourth are word-for-word copies of company press releases; if one removes word-for-word press release excerpts from the second cited article there is not very much of it left. YSSYguy (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Non-notable 1-year-old company without significant independent coverage. Of the four sources cited by Alzarian, only one is authored by named staff at a real newspaper - and that one is from the North Bay Business Journal, the company's hometown press. The Air Charter Journal articles read like uncredited press releases, and the Airport Business article is cited to Business Wire, a press-release medium. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 29 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) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Baker[edit]

Donald Baker (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 - I've been looking for sources for this gentleman for a while and I'm not finding anything that covers him in a capacity other than as plaintiff in the case Baker v. Wade. Fails WP:BIO1E. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it to the Baker case. While I agree it's one event, merger is much preferable here to deletion, thus saving any history and filling gaps in the target article. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing to merge. What little information in this article that's sourced is already in the case article (I added it from an independent source, not from this article) and what isn't referenced is either not relevant to the case (Baker's early life and life after the case) or is factually inaccurate (the recounting of the case history is wrong per multiple reliable sources). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N Likeminas (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - we already have a page for the legal case, so nothing, as they say, is lost - Alison ^❤ 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reluctantly, but all the good coverage seems to be in relation to and better treated at the case. A simple redirect would also work, as we will need a redirect at this title in any case. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of blue[edit]

Variations of blue (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? - seems to violate Wikipedia is not a directory and is redundant to the templates for shades of blue and shades of cyan. I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the variations of green article was to remove a lot of crap out of the green article where it had been previously, and consolidate a bunch of never-likely-to-be-more-than-stub articles. The variations of blue article has a similar goal. Personally, I wish that we had a clear standard for notability of color names, that we could stick to, and a clear standard for sources of representative colors for those names. That would take a lot of organizational work to get enough people to agree about though. user:Keraunos has put a lot of work into various minor color name endeavors, and though it is in my opinion (and the opinion of several others) misguided and not especially encyclopedic, no one has really had the time or desire to build a consensus around any solutions. The “shades of blue” and “shades of cyan” templates in my opinion should not exist, at least not in their current form. –jacobolus (t) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, there are a lot of stub articles (or articles of several stubs combined, or articles consisting of stubs + trivia sections) about various “blue” colors: Alice blue, Azure (color) (scroll down and look at the variations), Baby blue, Bleu de France (colour), Bondi blue, Brandeis blue, Cambridge Blue (colour), Carolina blue, Ceil, Cerulean, Columbia blue, Cornflower blue, Deep sky blue (“capri”), Denim (color), Dodger blue, Duke blue, Electric blue (color) (“Displayed at right is the color rich electric blue, a color widely used in the sex industry because it is a popular color for women's bikinis.”), Eton blue, Federal Blue, Glaucous, Iceberg (color), Iris (color), Majorelle Blue, Midnight blue, Navy blue, Non-photo blue, Palatinate (colour), Periwinkle (color), Persian blue, Powder blue, Royal blue, Sapphire (color), Steel blue, Teal (color), Tiffany Blue, Tufts Blue, UCLA Blue, Yale Blue, Aqua (color), Cadet grey (lists some "blues" too), Cyan, Indigo (scroll down; the top part is fine), Lavender (color) (scroll down), Robin egg blue, Turquoise (color), and probably others that I don’t know about. And that’s just colors close to “blue”. Some of the content of these many pages is clearly encyclopedic, but on the whole the articles are in shoddy shape, and straightening them out would be a huge job, for which there hasn’t been a whole lot of interest by anyone willing to actually devote time and effort.

Deleting this single “variations of blue” article as a hit-and-run deletion (that is, by editors uninterested in working to improve all the rest of these color-related articles overall) does almost nothing to clean up Wikipedia’s coverage of color. It would be more useful to instead merge many of these stubs into variations of blue, so that, all in one place, they could be kept track of and any unencyclopedic content could be removed. –jacobolus (t) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It's a legitimate spinoff from the article blue. The encyclopedic value, of course, is that people would consult such an article to determine the differences between navy blue and midnight blue. It may well be that this simply needs to be redirected to a picture of the template, or to the page Category: Shades of blue, however. Mandsford 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We already have ample articles on colors, including Blue, Aqua and countless others. We don't need more mindless permutations that add nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the purpose of the article is to display the major shades of blue that there isn't room for to display in the article on blue itself. Keraunos (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Template:Shades of blue is included in the original article, but one has to click on it to display it; why that is, I have no idea. Mandsford 19:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the shades of blue template is an arbitrary set of color names, some quite obscure, with unsourced or unreliably sourced RGB definitions. It’s bad enough that it exists at all; it's quite fine collapsed by default. –jacobolus (t) 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - As jacobolus points out, if we get rid of this one, we'll have a bigger problem killing off all the other blueish stubs. Until we have a better strategy, this article also helps keep Keraunos from bloating the blue article with this stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the RGB color system Cyan and Azure are NOT just shades of blue. There are 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel at intervals of 30 degrees. Cyan and Azure are two of these 12 colors besides Blue itself. Cyan and Azure are major and important colors in their own right apart from Blue. Keraunos (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel

The 12 major colors of the color wheel, at 30 degree intervals on the HSV color wheel (RGB color wheel) are the following: red (Color #FF0000 (0 degrees or 360 degrees), orange (Color #FF7F00) (30 degrees), yellow (Color#FFFF00) (60 degrees), chartreuse green (Color#7FFF00) (90 degrees), green (Color#00FF00) (120 degrees), spring green (Color#00FF7F) (150 degrees), cyan (Color#00FFFF) (180 degrees), azure (Color#007FFF) (210 degrees), blue (Color#0000FF) (240 degrees), violet (Color#7F00FF) (270 degrees), magenta (Color#FF00FF) (300 degrees), and rose (Color#FF007F) (330 degrees). This constitutes the complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary color names. Keraunos (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this 12-pointed RGB color wheel is something made up, with as far as I know no scientific, psychological, or prominent art-education basis. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't claim to be an expert on colors by any standard, but it seems like the tremendous ambiguities involved in naming colors argues against a list article. One person's (e.g.) "light blue" is another's "pale blue". In the absence of reliable sources that a particular shade of blue is named and notable this article strikes me as a repository of original research. I personally have no problem with a series of stubs about various shades of blue if there is reliable sourcing to back up the name of the shade. This and similar articles strike me as magnets for original research. Individual articles on various shades can include reliable sourcing regarding the particular shade. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source for most of these stubs, or when there is a reliable source it is only cited, telephone style, via a couple of people's personal websites. The stubs are not only also WP:OR magnets, but they can't be kept track of nearly as easily as a few consolidated articles (unless there are some people here volunteering to do clean-up work of all the color stubs... that'd be great). –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think. Tough one. Seems like the argument that we need a place to keep all the info on the variations of blue that 1) would clutter the Blue article but 2) don't need an article of their own makes sense. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as trivial and pointless an article as I can conceive of. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to spend some time working on cleaning up blue-related stubs? –jacobolus (t) 00:51, 31 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) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth's thirteen studio album[edit]

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

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

Seems like a bit of a WP:CBALL here, completely unreferenced "future album". And two more cents: there's no way this is the appropriate title for this topic; maybe that's because the album doesn't even have a title yet!? — Timneu22 · talk 18:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HAMMER.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: looks like a textbook WP:HAMMER case—just speculation. If and when Megadeth record a thirteenth studio album, information about it should probably stay at their article until the title, track listing, and release date are all confirmed. Cliff smith ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very obvious issue with WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. If the band is truly in the studio, that can be mentioned in their biography for the time being. And if (when) this album article gets deleted, watch for re-creations under slightly different article titles. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 25 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) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Platforms Use for Community Disaster Preparedness[edit]

Virtual Platforms Use for Community Disaster Preparedness (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)

Blatant WP:ESSAY and thus WP:OR. No CSD for essays. :( — Timneu22 · talk 18:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many and new references to substantiate that immersive learning is more effective for training and that community preparedness helps to save lives. We will be inviting those references to comment and/or link to this to indicate prior establishment of effective process. PSmithDrpsmith (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as WP:OR. Author also has, I suspect, WP:COI and without any kind of references, this article becomes borderline WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and user:Eddie.willers.Maashatra11 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references for the many strong claims made. It looks like an advert to me. Plus there is a "copyright pending" statement on it for some reason? Strange. If/when reliable sources start talking about it someone can recreate it properly. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Surgical Technique and Case Report[edit]

Journal of Surgical Technique and Case Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

New journal with no history; most unlikely to be notable yet & in no major selective indexes. (it had been prodded, but prod removed with a request to send it to afd). I have just deleted expired prods for about a dozen similar titles from this publisher, all too new to establish a publication history. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it's not impossible to be notable when being new, it does tend to be difficult. This doesn't pass muster. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a merge into Usmanu Danfodiyo University would be good. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My original prod reason still stands: "New journal, not indexed in any selective major databases. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Usmanu Danfodiyo University, the journal's publisher.--PinkBull 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is there to merge? There is no info sourced to anything else than the journal's homepage, so all we know is that it exists. In addition, the university covers lots of scientific fields, so a minor journal in one particular specialty being edited there (even if it were notable in itself) is rather trivial as far as the university is concerned. --Crusio (talk) 08:12, 30 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) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander DeLuca[edit]

Alexander DeLuca (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 blogger and author of a self-published book. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Subject is author of one short self published novel.--Kudpung (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - fails WP:N as well. Likeminas (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wagner (vintner)[edit]

Stanley Wagner (vintner) (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 appears to fail criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:BIO. Although the cited sources are reliable and independent, they are obituaries. Many non-notable people get obituaries; having such coverage doesn't meet the intent of the basic criteria for biographies. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Neither the article nor the cited obituaries describe anything particularly notable about this individual, as required by WP:BIO, specifically the criteria in WP:ANYBIO and possibly WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources documenting notability, including a rather lengthy obituary from The New York Times, one of three or four published in the paper that day. The article was included on the Wikipedia front page through WP:DYK on July 9, were it received substantial coverage with nary a complaint. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here and the same argument could be made about any article about any person who has died. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I stated in the opening, coverage by itself is not sufficient. Coverage within in Wikipedia, including DYK (which doesn't have notability as a criterion) doesn't confer notability either. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL has relevance if notability has not been established for the person. The article currently doesn't describe anything particularly notable. See "Additional criteria" in WP:BIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does count is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, which this article has, making the subject satisfy WP:N. Any other comments made above are comments alone. Which sources are you deeming to fail WP:RS and WP:V? If there is some issue with the content, please clarify what the issue is or make corrections to improve the article and address your concerns. By your own standards, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here as notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article does not indicate that any part of WP:BIO Additional criteria (not basic criteria) have been met; see WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are confusing notability with remarkability and other superlatives. Wikipedia uses notability, Guinness World Records uses remarkability as their standard for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep with an extra "e". Wikipedia says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." An obituary is the ne plus ultra of "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So anybody who gets a couple of obituaries automatically qualifies for inclusion, even if they meet no other criteria? Non-notable people get obituaries all the time, often two -- one in the town they were born and one in the community they lived. So what? My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources, and I can assure you I'm not notable. You don't get to pick and choose parts of WP:BIO convenient for you. What part of WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE is met here? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. That is the difference between a local and a national obituary. A local one isn't independent, it was written by the family. It involves a fee to the paper or to the funeral home, so it is self-published. Most papers don't even give full obits to locals anymore, they have the the standard 5 line funeral notices. I love the papers that still do local obits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources". That would be excluded by being a single event, and it would have to contain a full biography of you, not just three lines with your name and school and a sentence about your project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, a death is also a single event. I find it odd that a person would be deemed notable not before his death, but only afterward, by virtue of obituaries resulting from a single event. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is presumed notable on Wikipedia only once they have been noted, i.e., been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization is correct, that Wagner was only noted upon or after his death, it's an obvious time to take stock of a life's accomplishments, and history is full of notable people whose accomplishments were only recognized posthumously. So the timing of those publications about him does nothing to rebut the presumption of notability (we can also assume that the NY Times decided he was worthy of an obituary profile well prior to his death, as those are prepared in anticipation, but that's not necessary to go into). Nor would it follow from the timing of those publications that he is notable only in association with his death (your "one event" as you have confusedly characterized it). When reliable sources decided to write about him has nothing to do with why they wrote about him in this case. The NY Times did not write an obituary about him just because he died, as would be the case with a routine family-submitted obituary, but rather because the paper thought he was a significant individual, worthy of being noted. You can choose to persist in failing to understand this, no matter how many times it's been explained to you, but it should be clear to you at this point that you are the one in error from the fact that everyone else has disagreed with your interpretation of applicable guidelines and from your application of them. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep anyone with a full obituary in the New York Times automatically qualifies under the most basic of Wikipedia criteria, that of non-negligible coverage in reliable sources. As Richard Arthur Norton indicates above, newspaper obituaries of this nature might even be called a defining form of notability - you must be notable to even be considered for an obituary in a newspaper of record such as the New York Times. If Amatulić does not understand this then I suggest they do some more research into the matter before commenting further: in answer to their questions, WP:ANYBIO 1 & 2 apply and WP:CREATIVE 1, 2 & 3 are all met while 4 could be argued to have been achieved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-notable fellow, who hasn't accomplished anything particularly notable in his lifetime, and who has received little or no coverage during his lifetime, is nevertheless an upstanding member of his community and highly regarded, gets a full obit in the NYT and this automatically confers notability? Sorry, I don't see it. The subject here is presented as a vintner. Okay. Has his wines received national acclaim, or just awards in the many thousands of local/regional competitions held every year? I can't tell. Did he preside over a notable winery? Apparently not. Has he made a significant contribution to the world of wine? The article doesn't indicate it. You also need to do better than simply assert WP:ANYBIO 1 and 2 apply. The article must do this, and I am not seeing where this occurs. However, I will bow to consensus, as it looks like this article is a keeper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs)
    • I personally don't give a damn about wine and I don't know what constitutes a significant contribution to the world of wine. But the New York Times viewed him as the founder of a company (one of the first in a region now known for its wines) "whose wines quickly earned state and national recognition." That's why they published a posthumous profile of him. Not because they just thought he was a nice guy. So regardless of whether you personally view him as someone worthy of note, the fact is he was noted, by multiple reliable sources in substantial coverage. Satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient regardless of whether "additional criteria" such as WP:ANYBIO are satisfied ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") postdlf (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Postdlf, and further suggest that you take note of the way this Afd is going before submitting any more: learn more about the nature of reporter-written obituaries in newspapers of record before dismissing them so carelessly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability clearly established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My grandmother got an obituary when she passed away last year: it listed surviving family members, place of death, residence. It was published in the obituary section of the local newspaper as a matter of routine, submitted by family. Great lady though she was, she did not have a reporter-written profile published in the New York Times. It seems to me that the nom is equivocating the former with the latter just because both may be blandly called "obituaries." But the latter is clearly evidence of notability. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - on the "a NYT obit is ur- notability in the US" criteria. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not believe that having a New York Times obituary is an inherent guarantee of notability. However, it does help establish notability under WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject received other obituaries (i.e. proper obituary articles, not just one-paragraph death notices naming his survivors and where the funeral will be held). Not only that, he was mentioned in connection with his vineyard business in articles dating back to 1981 or maybe earlier (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). He seems to have been a person of some note at least within the New York winemaking business, so I would consider him sufficiently notable for an article. (However, I would recommend that the article be moved to Bill Wagner (vintner) instead; he seems to have been better known by his nickname Bill than as Stanley.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and yet, until Metropolitan90's comment above, nobody has explained how -- least of all the article itself with the sources cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BASIC states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". User:Alansohn explained this right off the bat. The nomination tried to tapdance around this by talking of "intent" but now you see that no-one is buying it so please withdraw to spare us further waste of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, moment of confusion there. I meant WP:ANYBIO. I don't contest that WP:BASIC isn't met. I have asserted, rather, that WP:BASIC aren't the only criteria that must be met for a bio article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you asserting that because you have not read the sentence that immediately precedes WP:ANYBIO, because you don't understand it, or because you would like it to be otherwise? postdlf (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Clearly notable, several reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – absurd nomination. Occuli (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NB - the standard template for this process is biased pro-deletion if the article name is unusual in some way. Compare Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (685 ghits on 'news', some relevant) with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (0 ghits on 'news'). Occuli (talk) 11:35, 27 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) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hobbs (herbalist)[edit]

Christopher Hobbs (herbalist) (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 Refudiate (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — Refudiate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has some publication record and a few trivial mentions, but I am not finding in depth independent coverage. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not supported by independent reliable sources. All sources are self-referential. Google News search finds only other people with the same name. Google Books finds only his own books. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 26 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) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roth Law Firm[edit]

The Roth Law Firm (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)

Nonnotable small law firm in NYC. Only claim to notability is a single lawsuit it filed that received a small amount of publicity. By analogy to WP:BLP1E, this shouldn't be enough for notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no guidelines other than WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:BLP truly apply, and this fails all of them. BLP1E may apply, but only in a stretch. According to my own standards, I think they also fail. Their only well-reported lawsuit was in which they represented themselves. Jordan M. Kam was a leading editor of a law review or journal at an accredited law school, so he's borderline. Richard Roth teaches MCLE at an online site, not an accredited college or law school; he may have never taught in a clasroom for all we know. None of the attorneys, upon information and belief, have ever won or judged a major moot court, or served as chair of a bar committee, clerked, arguing any before the Supreme Court of the United States, or run for or served in major public office. Their associate is a fairly new attorney, having only been admitted two years ago, and possibly has not even tried a case as "first chair". Since none of the attorneys are notable, and it is a three-attorney firm, I can't see how the law firm is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This fails to meet a good standard of being notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:44, 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mansour[edit]

Adam Mansour (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:ATHLETE and is not notable. Signed his first professional contract, which led to creation of page. Doesn't justify article creation. Joao10Siamun (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without any first team appearances for Auxere, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to absense of significant coverage, and due to its failing of WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. -Atmoz (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he gets on the field for the Auxerre first team. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per all of the above. sdornan (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No appearances for Auxerre, none for either France or Egypt and nothing to show he passes Wp:GNG all point to that result. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of French language films[edit]

List of French language films (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 don't see the point of this article when Category:French-language films already exists. Additionally, the list isn't even close to comprehensive judging by the number of articles in the aforementioned category. sdornan (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is surprising that the nominator has not noticed that the list has information not included in the category – year, English title and director – and that the list is sortable. Deleting the list is a bizarre way to make it more comprehensive. Occuli (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:CLN Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. This list has a clear-defined inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Occuli, Lugnuts and WP:CLN. Lists and categories aren't mutually exclusive. As can be clearly seen by this article, lists can contain much more info than categories. This list is in pretty good shape, although needs more references and is far from complete. Luckily, comprehensiveness is not required of list articles in order for them to exist.--BelovedFreak 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Conservez). The sortable table makes this more useful than a category, although the nominateur does have a point in being concerned about the extent to which such a list would grow. Mandsford 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually supportive... with a list offering more to the reader (specially this one, as it is sortable) than a simple category. This list has a clearly defined inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Worth having this style presentation of the info provided. JmacBrown (talk) 12:00, 28 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) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evinger Enterprises[edit]

Evinger Enterprises (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 concerns -- is the article mentioned anywhere in technical journals or large publications? User A1 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google News knoweth them not. The article is bristling with unsourced statements about how wonderful the technology patented by this business is. Merely being awarded a provisional patent does not establish that this business established in June, 2009 has historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Leaning towards Delete - Evinger Enterprises does not seem to be very known, and barely has any mentions except on websites it owns (such as evingerinc.com), and none in significant publifications. Unless valid and reliable sources can be found, I see no point in having this article on WP. Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Judging from the page history, it seems all of the article's content was created by Albert James Evinger, III (User:AJEIII), listed in the article's infobox as "Founder, Chairman, and CEO" of this "corporation." sdornan (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how can a company founded in 2009 be notable as per WP:CORP? Also, potential WP:COI with article's creator. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If filing a patent is enough to establish notability I should have multiple pages! Seriously, this article just doesn't meet the guidelines. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:17, 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 speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forward thinking[edit]

Forward thinking (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. Seems to be pure, unadulterated original research, prohibited in our WP:NOR policy. Was considering a G1 speedy deletion, but couldn't quite bring myself to take it there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research per WP:NOR, no significant coverage of term online in WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Speedy delete would have been okay. Original essay. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR with no potential for backing sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is very close to patent nonsense: Forward Thinking = The Animal is a Duck and it will fly or walk, or The Animal is a Duck and it will not fly or walk, or The Animal is not a Duck and it will not fly or walk. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This most definitely seems to be original research judging from Google results. sdornan (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an original essay (WP:NOR), and there isn't much research into this subject. And not written in a very encyclopedic manner, in my personal opinion (A=B=C=D=E? Really?). Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research/essay. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete - Nonsensical OR/essay. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's ok to delete, why debate it? (WP:NOR), and it was submitted to the system at 18:30, 8 August 2007, and been in the the system for almost 3 years with very little constructive dialogue from very few users... in my personal opinion it should be deleted. Thanks, -Davidvalin (talk)
• Speedy Delete, Per WP:CSD#A10 or WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#G2 (It's true that G1 isn't a good criterion.) Maashatra11 (talk) 20:12, 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Smith (prisoner activist)[edit]

Russell Smith (prisoner activist) (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 biography has almost no verified information - the only information that is verified in a reliable source is that Smith founded POSRIP and then disappeared in the early 80s. The other sources are either blogs or primary sources (one of which doesn't even mention him). I found a 2009 book that discusses him,[13] but it so closely resembles this article (which pre-dates the book, see the version from the beginning of 2009) that I would be concerned about fact-laundering if we used it as a source.

I am not proposing a merge to Just Detention International due to the lack of information about Smith available in reliable sources.

Note: User:Russelldansmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who claimed to be the subject of the article was blocked in February for making legal threats, and a Russell Dan Smith did then file legal proceedings against the WMF the Department of Homeland Security for not investigating the WMF for links to terrorism:[14][15]. A biography of someone claiming to be Smith is available on Xlibris, a self-publishing platform. Fences&Windows 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term; no need for redirect. This is probably the same guy who has written a non-notable series of books about ETs and sex, but there is a lack of signficiant coverage in independent reliable sources on which to build an article. The New York Observer article is likely the only reliable secondary source and there is nothing of substance there that could not be included in Just Detention International. Location (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources used in the article can be regarded as reliable, and much of the article is unreferenced. Furthermore, I am unable to locate reliable sources myself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI disclosure: The subject is currently indef-blocked from editing Wikipedia over legal threats made here on my talk page and reiterated through an unblock request. I was mentioned by name in this writ, submitted by the subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 04:27, 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bored Gordon[edit]

Bored Gordon (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 and referencing issues I8a4re (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. First of all, like a lot of bands, the easily fail all of the WP:MUSIC criteria -- No national tour, no charting songs, no significant media writeups, no awards, etc. -- except that they do have albums. But on Powertool Records. Is Powertool "one of the more important indie labels"? No, not even close. Powertool appears to be (or have been - they seem to be out of business) some guy in a closet making records of local New Zealand bands. Band no longer exists, so its not like they're going to become notable. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 30 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 withdrawn. No delete votes. — Timneu22 · talk 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Nasiedkin[edit]

Anatoliy Nasiedkin (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)

OK, this person won the Shevchenko National Prize, or so they claim. But there is absolutely not a single google hit for this name. The name should be Anatoliy Nasedkin, then you get some hits. But is this enough?? Similar searches aren't promising. Notability problems and lack of substantial coverage is the primary reason for this AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mark as stub. Change spelling of name to Nasedkin. Change word order of names given in Russian and Ukrainian. The Shevchenko Prize is the highest Ukrainian literary award and his winning in 1985 makes any other requirements for inclusion moot. He is notable. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed the name order problem. Still needs to be marked as a stub and to be renamed. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so fast on the keep. Where's the reference? — Timneu22 · talk 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See ru:Наседкин, Анатолий Леонидович on Russian Wikipedia. A notable painter.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:You can find plenty of sources in Russian/Ukrainian here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, the article headed Вечірній Харків, 21.04.1984, Образний світ Анатолія Насєдкіна is independent third-party coverage of Nasedkin in the newspaper "Evening Kharkov"... Carrite (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Winner of Shevchenko National Prize. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hare - English Folk Guitarist, Singer and Songwriter[edit]

Phil Hare - English Folk Guitarist, Singer and Songwriter (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 title is absolutely incorrect, and that's just getting started. No citations, no sources, not favorable google hits and promotional youtube links. This wasn't A7'd but I don't see where importance is asserted because there is a mild bit of importance asserted, but nothing backed up with a viable reference. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Phil's debut album 'Living On Credit' was released to critical acclaim and featured strong political material which moved the Daily Telegraph to say in July 1990: 'If Folk song is history from underneath, the Phil's songs are todays' broadsides'." That isn't an assertion of importance? Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Tho I was unable to find a source for the Telegraph quote. There is certainly assertion of importance, but not sure there are reliable sources to back that up. Syrthiss (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:PUFFERY - also reads like WP:AUTOBIO. No WP:RS available. "Criticial acclaim" does not meet WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this musician. This article in Spalding Today is a substantial writeup with several assertions of notability; assertions that were taken verbatim from the musician's website biography. As such, it's really a press release rehash rather than independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Crutchfield[edit]

Missy Crutchfield (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)

Biographical article about a local politician, but written as a spammy promotion rather than genuine biography. There's virtually nothing here about Crutchfield herself, not even her date of birth, background, family etc, just spam-like material about her department and its various initiatives and about her own radio show and magazine. Inadequately referenced as well. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article makes only passing mention of its subject, and I feel fails to satisfy WP:NN. Significance is averred, but not adequately demonstrated. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable local government official/media personality. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is currently unavailable for reading or editing because of a copyright infringement investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which, bizarrely, was triggered by the article's creator. However you can read the article here. BTW I already removed the obviously copyvio material so I really have no idea why she flagged the article. andy (talk) 08:05, 29 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 as duplicate of THD method which is also at AFD here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler guided transanal dearterialization[edit]

Doppler guided transanal dearterialization (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)

Yet another repost of an article that has already been deleted as the result of an AfD here and twice subsequently as a repost. This is word-for-word identical with the original. The original nomination was that "this appears to be an essay explaining this technique in removing hemorrhoids - and beyond promotional tone, not a lot more than that", and the point was made that although the supporting references exist there is no evidence of notability and the article is not suitable for merging because of its ad-like tone. So I'm nominating it as a reposted, non-notable, soapbox essay. andy (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as promotional peacocking. This article is a recreation of a deleted article of no merit and should have been deleted per CSD G4.Novangelis (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Being an essay on a proper subject is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Consider working on articles as a substitute for tagging them for deletion. This is Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And the number of medical articles on transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization, published in such places as the peer-reviewed American Journal of Surgery (example: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2002.11.003), the peer-reviewed Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (example: doi:10.1007/s10350-005-0281-8), and the peer-reviewed Techniques in Coloproctology (example: doi:10.1007/s10151-007-0376-4) indicates that you could clean this article up if you actually tried. I note from the previous AFD discussion, Novangelis, that you prefer an unsourced paragraph of text to an article which cites four journal articles on the subject. What on Earth is possessing you to favour unsourced content over actual sources and content that can be worked with? For goodness' sake pull out the editing tool to write without mercy instead of to call for deletion again and again! Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO the article as it stands is unsalvageable, and the point has been previously made that the topic is already covered at Hemorrhoid#Procedures although not in such depth. It could only be rewritten by an expert who could see their way through the blether and inaccuracies of the current article ("one of the most widespread and feared anal-rectal diseases" for goodness sake!) and create something better. It's very easy to say "write without mercy", but a non-expert could do no better than Hemorrhoid#Procedures. andy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The absence of an inline citation does not make a statement inaccurate. On the other hand, sources are meaningless if the article does not resemble the content of the sources. This piece of promotional fluff should be deleted for the fourth time, and swiftly. The existing text is beyond salvage. If I thought it was salvageable, I would have made the effort or, at the minimum, recommended against deletion. I've found little to salvage or articles I thought were more savable.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Hemorrhoid#Procedures as per andy. And possibly protect the redirect page, to prevent yet another recreation of this badly titled, horribly written article. There are many treatments for hemorrhoids available; they should all be in one place, unless a separate article for one of them is required by some striking notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article's link to this AfD discussion is a redlink. I have no idea why. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. andy (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hemorrhoid#Procedures. If this method is found to be notable, then perhaps someone from WP:MED can fix this article later. As it stands, the article is not salvageable. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aimetis[edit]

Aimetis (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)