< 10 June	12 June >

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

The result was merge to List of characters in The X-Files. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X-Files actors[edit]

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

Seems redundant of information already in The X-Files, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. 2 says you, says two 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in The X-Files 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the IP and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Polarpanda (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC) by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). — Jeff G. ツ 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evelin Iliev[edit]

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

Notability claims seem to be exaggerated, and at best, difficult to check as most seem to be in languages other than English. Technopat (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 19-year-old journalism student and website editor. Fails WP:CREATIVE (as a journalist) and WP:ENT (as an actor). Most sources cited are affiliated with subject (especially telemaniac.com), or otherwise of questionable reliability. Only semi-credible claim to notability seems to be in the context of organizing an unsuccessful fan protest against the winner of the 2009 Bulgarian Eurovision song contest. Hqb (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:ENT. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hosting at a age of 14? I agree with the notability being exaggerated. Dengero (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 blanking by the author in this edit. I have tagged it as such. — Jeff G. ツ 20:50, 13 June 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. 7 05:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oralno doba[edit]

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

Non-notable. It seems to be a lot of fodder about a failed local TV project. The "references" are all local tabloids. Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For "local" above read "national", and this "failed" project aired for eight months on a national terrestrial network. These intra-Balkan nominations are getting very tiresome - even if you don't like your neighbours can't you simply accept that we can still have articles about them? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, seriously, try to assume good faith. This is not non-notable to me personally, in fact it is somewhat notable to me personally because it is from a neighboring country, but it's not notable to the rest of the world. For reference, I have also recently submitted several random local "celebs" from my country for deletion, in addition to other things. Do try to remember that just because you may think we're all some sort of tribal grudge-holders, not all of us actually are that :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JFTR I have only nominated the dead projects, and not Fajront Republika, because that is the current one that seems to have outlasted these other two and may actually have a future. You know, what with all the "notability is not temporary" policy :P --Joy [shallot] (talk)
- Also on the matter of national terrestrial TV network production - it is not inherently notable. You could probably find numerous ad campaigns with longer relative and absolute air-time, as well as larger coverage, but it would still not be necessarily notable. Indeed I believe all commercial media programmes need to be scrutinized under the anti-publicity guidelines, because often the point of their existence, and the resulting media coverage, is in fact generating an endless stream of publicity that is circularly referenced. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are certainly some notability issues, but everything else seems to be in good order (Links to hosts etc etc). Dengero (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationally-broadcast series which includes a sourced quote about the series' low ratings and high cost. The quote comes from a source independent of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see my reading of the definition of Wikipedia:Notability differs from yours. Specifically the part saying: However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. Is it the fact that it was nationally broadcast that constitutes notability? Is that the standard other articles should be judged upon, too? Anything that shows up in more than one iteration on any television station that has coverage over any country is automatically notable? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Serbia is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Guideline does not demand that a talk show last for years, nor does it demand that notability be world-wide. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we differ in the interpretation of guidelines. Is it notable in Serbia, really, if the only references we have are tabloids? Sure, the information may be true regardless of that, but WP:RS and WP:UNDUE still come to mind. This sounds like it could easily be a footnote in the article on Fox televizija. I googled a bit and found one article in Politika. Is there any more, to counteract the WP:NOTNEWS stance stated above? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we'll disagree. The Serbian series aired 4 times a week for 7 months.. airing over 120 episodes. It received Serbian national coverage. And as coverage of a topic in news media is specifically recomended by guideline, that guideline-encouraged use of news coverage of an ongoing series does not fall under the "short burst" caution of WP:NOTNEWS. Had it actually been a one-time single news event, then yes... but not for continued coverage of television series... even if the series and the coverage eventually ended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in one country, makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. Out of six billion people on this planet, do you think even half of them have heard of whatever the most popular show in the world is? It only has to get coverage in one country, and its fine. You understand a nation by seeing what popular culture exist that entertains and potentially influences them. Dream Focus 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a TV show that got cancelled after a few months. Not notable. I don't know how all of you can claim that this show is notable when all of the sources are WP:NONENG with no translation given. Everyone who voted to keep: do you all speak Serbian? How can you tell that the sources provided establish notability, or that they're even reliable sources? SnottyWong talk 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even an English-language show can be cancelled after a few months. Its the coverage that can grant notability. As for reading or accepting the sources, one can always try research, AGF, google translate, and babelfish. Serbian-reading Wikipedians are welcome to offer translations, but not having English-only sources is not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - TBH, this is not the OP's complaint. He's saying you can't determine whether a source is reliable and that it provides significant coverage just by the fact that it exists and is hyperlinked from the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since even Babelfish and GoogleTranslate show that the Serbian media sources deal entirely with the show and/or its host, and since they are not simply pocket reviews or trivial mentons in a list or database, their coverage meets "significant" per guideline. As for determiniing the reliability of a Serbian national media source to cite articles on Serbian media topics, that question is now at WikiProject Countering systemic bias, the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and Serbian-related pages Talk:Serbia and Talk:Cinema of Serbia. As I had noticed the question had not been asked where it might best BE asked, I went and asked. While you are free to go over and call them "tabloids", many European reliable sources make use of that accepted smaller format and it does not hold the same onus in Europe as it might in the US... so it might be best to await input from editors able to make a neutral determination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Živić Show[edit]

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

Non-notable. It seems to be a lot of fodder about a failed local TV project. The "references" are all local tabloids. Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For "local" above read "national", and this "failed" project aired for 95 episodes on a national terrestrial network. These intra-Balkan nominations are getting very tiresome - even if you don't like your neighbours can't you simply accept that we can still have articles about them? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, seriously, try to assume good faith. This is not non-notable to me personally, in fact it is somewhat notable to me personally because it is from a neighboring country, but it's not notable to the rest of the world. For reference, I have also recently submitted several random local "celebs" from my country for deletion, in addition to other things. Do try to remember that just because you may think we're all some sort of tribal grudge-holders, not all of us actually are that :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JFTR I have only nominated the dead projects, and not Fajront Republika, because that is the current one that seems to have outlasted these other two and may actually have a future. You know, what with all the "notability is not temporary" policy :P --Joy [shallot] (talk)
- Also on the matter of national terrestrial TV network production - it is not inherently notable. You could probably find numerous ad campaigns with longer relative and absolute air-time, as well as larger coverage, but it would still not be necessarily notable. Indeed I believe all commercial media programmes need to be scrutinized under the anti-publicity guidelines, because often the point of their existence, and the resulting media coverage, is in fact generating an endless stream of publicity that is circularly referenced. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are certainly some notability issues, but everything else seems to be in good order (Links to hosts etc etc). Just doubling my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oralno doba Dengero (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Program aired nationally for 95 episodes. More sources should be included, but several already are. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's becoming pointless to paste analogous comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oralno doba, anyone interested please see over there :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Serbia is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Guideline does not demand that notability be world-wide. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 15 June 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) 01:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Kikuchi[edit]

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

Can not find sufficient verifiable information independent of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. Not sure if being a Maikeru Award nominee is sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO, although from the lack of information I can find about the award I suspect it is not. With her one role in a film with 'very limited release' I also don't believe she passes WP:ENT. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ redirect to Rinko Kikuchi. I'm always hesitant to vote delete just because I haven't heard of someone, but I can find nothing about this person on the web or in the usual places. IMDB has no entry for her. Every hit I find, whether searching on "Yuriko Kikuchi" or "菊池百合子", actually relate to Rinko Kikuchi or Yuriko (dancer). I can't find squat on the Maikeru Award. Her one movie apparently sunk without a trace. The article alleges that her single "No Eyes" "topped the charts" in Japan, but that is unsourced, and it clearly flopped in Canada, after which she got out of the entertainment business. If not for the fact that I fear there could be coverage of her in the Japanese language that I am missing, I would make this a flat Delete instead of a weak one. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, this article used to redirect to Rinko Kikuchi. See [1]. If a decision is made to remove the material on this Yuriko "Lisa" Kichuki, that redirect should be reinstated. Even if kept, there needs to be some naming maintenance and disambiguation to account for the three articles on Yuriko "Lisa" Kichuki, Rinko Kikuchi and Yuriko (dancer). TJRC (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jurassic Fight Club. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Blasing[edit]

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

Only one half notable work, not multiple as required by WP:CREATIVE. Triwbe (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ "Dinosaur George" seems to be a known educator in the USA, see San Antonio News, The NY Times, ProSoundWeb.com. See also the interviews and published articles listed at his personal website. Please don't confuse with heavyweight "dinosaur George" Foreman :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jurassic Fight Club. The limited notability he has at present relates to this TV program. That article could have a short section about the program's host. Most of the current content of the article under discussion isn't really encyclopedic in tone though. Qwfp (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I agree. Merging is the best option, which I did, but an anon editor undid it. --Triwbe (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, merging looks like the best outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as A7 (not notable person) and G11 (promotional) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Speedy delete~~ (WP:CSD#G11: promotional). Also an unreferenced WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a cleanup I think WP:CSD#G11 might no longer apply, but there's still no indication of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some media coverage, mostly in Texas. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Qwfp - otherwise he's a delete per BLP1E 7 09:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E doesn't really apply, as he's also known for his museum work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 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. No sources = delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion but we do not routinely redirect every nn company that makes products to that article Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storz & Bickel[edit]

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

This is seemingly a non-notable company selling a non-notable product. The website of the company is blacklisted, and this was the only reference provided. SmokingNewton (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the blacklisting of the company website, please see discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#storz-bickel.com (request withdrawn as moot). --87.79.173.212 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Before SmokingNewton nom'd the article for deletion, I tried to at least wikify the wording and added the company's own website as a primary source (the entire article is obviously based on the company profile from their website but it was never appropriately referenced).
Prompted by the AfD I looked around for potential secondary sources, but it has ultimately left me agreeing with SmokingNewton that no independently verifiable article can be assembled about the company itself at this point in time. Therefore, delete per nom, then redirect (to Volcano Vaporizer) [otoh, nvmd] without reservation against potential recreation at a later point, circumstances permitting. --87.79.173.212 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for me (not beeing an expert for vapor.) this company seems to be an innovator on the sector of vaporizers (there are 137.000 Google hits for its main product), so I also cleaned up [2] the article (remember it's a stub); of course it remains a lot of work - for experts. Dewritech (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The product is notable, no doubt about that. But it does not automatically follow that the company is notable as well. There either are independent reliable sources which are at least partly dedicated to the company -- or there aren't. [added: Stubs are not "proto-articles" and somehow exempt from our core content policies. Reliable independent sources to verify notability and a minimum of content are obligatory, not optional.] Your keep is therefore entirely invalid, [unless you or someone else actually finds and names reliable sources about the company itself]. --78.34.201.39 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the last editing of the article was almost a delete... Dewritech (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean blanking? No, I merely removed a few unreferenced sentences. --78.34.201.39 (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And didn't look for references either; now there is not too much left to be referenced. Dewritech (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? (a) I did look for sources about the company specifically, found none, therefore believe the article should be deleted. (b) The entire "article" was based on the company's self-representation on their website (which is a big no-no in and of itself) and even that promotional company history wasn't even properly referenced (another big no-no in and of itself). Look for yourself (the website is blacklisted btw but it contains no malware as far as I can see): http://www[dot]storz-bickel[dot]com/vaporiser/storz-bickel-company-vaporiser-manufacturer.html (c) Did you actually look for sources before voting to keep? --87.79.59.160 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"now there is not too much left to be referenced" -- No problem: Just find reliable sources and reinstate whatever material they can back up. --87.79.59.160 (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something like [3] or [4]. But as said before, I’m not an expert here. But with 137k's at G notab. can be assumed. Dewritech (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"notability can be assumed" -- No, it absolutely can not because for all we know every single one of those hits is primarily about the Volcano Vaporizer and contains no further information specifically about the company. Like the pdf files you linked: They contain almost nothing about the company itself (but feel free to edit the article and add whatever material about the company which the sources can back up). --87.79.176.70 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Dewritech (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find no significant coverage in reliable sources for the company. The company is not notable because it has a notable product. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volcano Vaporizer#Production. It appears that this company is notable primarily fort his product. As such, it would be appropriate to redirect to a section in the product article to give a little information about the company. Any additional sourced information can continue to be added in that section. If the company creates more notable products, then the redirect can be undone, and the section material merged in. I see no good reason for outright deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sources about the company itself is not a sufficient reason for outright deletion iyo? Please present those sources, don't speculate on their existence. --84.44.236.95 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't sources to establish notability. However, nobody is challenging the existence of the company. The company exists, and that it makes the Volcano Vaporizer is not disputed, and is verifiable with articles such as this domain name dispute with a distributor. As such there is no justification for a standalone article, but as the maker of a notable product, a redirect to the product article is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you agree that the page should be deleted and subsequently redirected. We do not need the page history to create a redirect in its place, you know. And in this case, the "article" history holds nothing of value. --87.79.188.197 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I am saying. I don't see why the history needs to be deleted as well. It's not like this is a ~~slanderous~~libelous unverified BLP. It's simply unverified information on a company that hasn't established stand-alone notability. The material in the history is probably more or less true, but not verified. It can be useful in the future for somebody looking to expand the section on the company as a starting point for research. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatt Lobo[edit]

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

It seems very dubious that a light jeep would carry heavy firepower, such as anti-tank rockets (the anti-tank rocket platform doesn't even look operable). It also looks like a toy or a mock-up. Elryacko (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks very much like the American Desert Patrol Vehicle, the text claims it carries a RPG-7 which is feasible. But in the picture the AT weapons look like AT-3 Sagger missiles. It would not be the first time a military has exaggerated claims on its equipments performance. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the company website [5] so it looks like it does exist. Would ned someone to translate the Spanish. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning strongly toward delete. It looks to me like the author found a couple of pics and made an article based completely on OR, though the statistics on performance (such as the engine) andd manufacturer are telling. I'd be willing to vote keep if references appear. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no refs, possible hoax. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unreferenced and a Google search produces no useful hits at all other than a very similar-looking article on the Spanish Wikipedia. As a result, this would seem to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking at the picture again, it looks more like a modified dune-buggy. I can't imagine fire-extinguishers being mounted somewhere where it could be hit. And Casanave Industries (it's alleged manufacturer) does not exist when I Google search it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elryacko (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention the fuel tanks on the left hand side of the driver and behind the gunner! (which looks like a very unpleasant and easy way to die if anyone was to shoot at the thing). The pictures appear to have been photo shopped - in File:EXHIBITION OF VATT.jpg the sunlight striking the 'Vatt Lobo' appears to be hitting it at a different angle from the sunlight in the background and in File:LOBO_2007.jpg the 'Vatt Lobo' is out of proportion to the tank behind it. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unreferenced and no sources readily apparent when searching, thus fails WP:V. — AustralianRupert (talk) 18:08, 13 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premises[edit]

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

This is a very confused article. It actually covers three separate topics collected into one conglomeration of an article. It first covers premises in the sense of real property and buildings, for which we already have articles. Then, we have a section on "premises liability", which is a legal topic that should be covered in its own article. Finally, we have "premises registration", which a regulation that has very little to do with premises and much to do with livestock, although as written it consists mainly of an appeal to American citizens to make comments about a particular government action that was expected to occur in January. Powers ^T 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd article. I can't say I've seen an article like this one. It's certainly not encylopedic. Probably a redirect or delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article has promise, but the title should be changed to "Premises liability" (which is currently a redirect to this page; IMO that's getting it backwards). Delete the "premises registration" stuff and expand the information about premises liability, which is a valid concept in law and worthy of an article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article isn't about one topic but the use of the word "premises". WP:NOT There could be articles lurking within the text but this topic serves no purpose. Eudemis (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I am, quite frankly, dismayed that this important legal term was not researched before nomination. Admittedly, the article is stubby and messy, but it is an obviously notable legal term that should be in an encyclopedia. This is exactly the sort of topic that a high school or college student would be seeking for here. Premises liability already redirects here, but I have no problem with re-re-directing it back there. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three other reasons: the article has been heavily vandalized, it has parallel articles on many other languages' Wikipedias, and has been cleaned up several times previously, for example here. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sabrina Bryan#Byou. Courcelles (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byou[edit]

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

A non-notable workout/exercise DVD video release with no significant coverage by independent sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for both the CD and DVD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabrina Bryan. Inniverse (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabrina_Bryan#Byou, which seems to cover this DVD to a reasonable enough level. I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability via a Google search. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pentagram (Gorgoroth album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promo '94[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, but do not delete. This album turned into what became known as Pentagram. Your Google links show that too. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable demo, no reliable sources in article (Metal-Archives isn't reliable), very little on Google, nothing on Allmusic or Amazon. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pentagram. This one's tricky because it is intimately connected with that later album, as noted by Undead Warrior above. But MrMoustache is also correct about shortage of sources. In this case the merge to the album article can be done in a way that describes the historical influence of one release on the other. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least Merge to Pentagram. It is referenced at http://www.gorgoroth.info/discography/ under "Other releases". Here is a review of the demo: http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=717 and here is a review of a bootleg CD of the demo (since it was originally only released as a cassette): http://www.voenger.de/review.php?id=160 Bulgakoff (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge or Delete (I'm changing my vote and deleting the original vote, as I was unaware I shouldn't re-vote in a relist): two of the sources Bulgakoff suggested could be WP:RS, I don't know enough about either to say, but I'm willing to accept them (the Gorgoroth page isn't a secondary source, and so wouldn't qualify). But I see very little that is notable about this demo, and WP:MUSIC suggests that demos are generally non-notable. For example, Nirvana (band), a very successful and well-known band, has no pages for their demos, which (despite personal opinion on their music) would be far more notable than Gorgoroth's demos. At best, this deserves maybe a mention in the Pentagram (Gorgoroth album) article (along the lines of "two songs, "Song A" and "Song B", were released on the Promo '94 demo cassette prior to this album", and maybe a picture of the demo off to the side of the sentence). It also could be merged with Gorgoroth, in the same way Carcass' demos are merged with that page. But I would support a full delete and no mention on either page, as well. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least Merge it with the Pentagram article. In addition to the two previous reviews I posted, here's a link to another one (which reviews both this demo and the previous 1993 demo, and which discusses the progress made from the 1993 demo to this one which ultimately led to the sound and style of the tracks found on the 1994 full-length album Pentagram): metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=6&id=15385 Bulgakoff (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Morbid Angel. In lieu of deletion, and as a theoretically possible search term. I don't think the mention will overwhelm the band's article. Shimeru 07:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abominations of Desolation[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (or merge) - Although this was recorded as a demo (and demos are generally not notable), it was later officially released (as explained in the article). As a result, it passes WP:MUSIC. In theory, it could be merged into the artist's article, but giving the backstory would require more than just the typically track listing. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Officially released CD, passes WP:MUSIC. Added refs to help improve page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yet another case of insufficient WP:BEFORE research, not to mention paying attention to the text of the article itself. The basic assumption on demos does not hold up in this case. Thanks to the work of MrMoustache this article is acceptable as a stub. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject with one all music link? Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment - Frankly, it doesn't. However, we generally keep legit released albums by notable bands. The alternative is merging it into the band's article which, inthe case of numerous notable albums (or purportedly notable) and one not would result in a rather odd article. I'd say that's a judgement call, hence my !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:STUB allows short articles with minimal references if there is a possibility that editors will expand the article someday. (There is no deadline.) What SummerPhD said above is also supported by the Wikipedia Albums Project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ec. Thanks for commenting. So..all albums of a wikipedia notable band are notable. If we generally keep legit released albums it should say that in the guideline then, it says in the guideline that the album itself should meet to GNG, another case of where policy is not meeting practice. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stub and will improve later..this album was released in 1986, a quarter of a century ago, suggesting it is going to jump up and become more notable and that it is a work in progress is a large step in faith indeed. The album does not meet the general notability guidelines at all, not as a stub and not as a work in progress. Also if the wikipedia albums project believes that all albums from any wikipedia notable band are to be kept then policy should reflect that and it doesn't, does it? It appears to say that all albums should independently meet the GNG. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of album notability. Clearly fails this part of WP:ALBUM All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob: While I have voted differently than you, I admit that you have made very good points about policy and practice. But note that in Wikipedia terms there is a subtle difference between a "policy" and a "guideline" and examples of each are at play here. The thing about the Albums Project supporting articles for all albums by notable artists is more of a precedent that has developed over time, and it's a relatively loose guideline that allows more flexibility than a stringent policy. So this is a good example of an AfD debate in which these loose guidelines are allowing some differences in opinion. If the ultimate consensus here is to delete, so be it, but at least we can be flexible as a group. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, flexibility is a good thing, people like it and it gets a fair few views and its not harming anyone, my only issue really is that under guidelines it is a delete. No worries, I may go to the guideline and try to alter it to reflect practice, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that altering a guideline should probably be preceded by a lot of discussion on the associated talk page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - I don't see how we can keep an article that is expressly non-notable. If there's no room for this content in the band article or on another related article, then Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for this content. Neelix (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has at least one reliable source (now two reliable sources), passes WP:NOTABILITY. Album is by a notable band, and so passes WP:MUSIC. Perhaps someone can add the stub template ("This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it." or however it goes) to show that it is a stub. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
voting twice MrMoustach you can't vote again in a relisted discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was under the impression that a relisted entry means everyone should relist their votes. My mistake. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The album does not pass WP:MUSIC at all, to qualify it needs to be individually notable and this album with the citations presented and from the results of the search that I did myself is not wikipedia notable. This http://www.amazon.com/Abominations-Desolation-Morbid-Angel/dp/B0000072BE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276365982&sr=8-4 is not a source that asserts notability it is an amazon sale link and the other citation is a three line mini review at allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:j9foxquhldje which also doesn't assert any notablility either.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how those two sources do not pass WP:NOTABILITY? They are significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail, which they do), reliable (sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, both Allmusic and Amazon are privately edited, and I have not seen evidence that either Amazon or Allmusic are not considered reliable sources), sources (for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, which these are; Multiple sources are generally expected., there are two), independent of the subject (excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject, neither of these are directly linked with the band, their label, etc), and regarding presumed, as far as I'm aware it does not violate WP:NOT. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being re-released does not make the article pass WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The album is listed as a regular album in Daniel Bukszpan's Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal with the release year of 1991 by Earache --Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was looking to close this but there was insufficient consensus. The status of this art5icle according to policy is clear. V requires us to be able to verify all information and that is policy. If there are no sources the article fails V and cannot stand. below that is N which requires indepth sources not mentions and below that is MUSIC which is subordinate to both. Since no-one has shown that detailed sources exist this is a delete althout editorially I might plump for a redirct to the band. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete and alternative options do not require admin tools and can be decided by editorial consensus on the article talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal New Zealand Navy Future Plans[edit]

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

I just don't see how an article on the future plans of a navy can be encyclopedic. They change over time, are subject to a degree of secrecy as well as ever-changing political viewpoints, and it is particularly difficult to keep such an article neutral. Project Protector as such could have its own article. dramatic (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom. Can't say much else about the deletion really. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As what were future plans have essentially been completed there seems no reason to keep this article. Any relevant information can be moved to Royal New Zealand Navy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are similar articles Future of the Royal Navy , Future of the Royal Air Force , although the French French_Navy#Future_developments and US Navy doesn't seem to have anything. Specific projects (like new ship classes) usually have articles - SimonLyall (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and Reorganise to Project Protector - agree with nom. The problem is that it's very hard to write articles about non-specific subjects, and hard to update them. The RNZN is not likely to be doing any major more-than-one-class procurement projects for some time, except the ANZAC class modernisation which can be handled at the class page. Any new classes will eventually have their own pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and Reorganise per Buckshot. The changes to the RNZN the article describes were highly notable and represented a major change in the RNZN's force structure. However, its now complete and there aren't any further changes likely for some years (though the two Anzac class frigates are to receive significant upgrades in the next few years). In regards to the nomination, I don't agree that there's a notable "degree of secrecy" in the force structure development plans in NZ or most other democracies - these were announced years in advance and have been reported on publicly. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and Reorganise as above. Much of the article is about Project Protector, which won't radically change quickly, and is more encyclopaedic. Adabow (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and Reorganize since Yanks like me spell the word differently. For my part, I just don't see why an article on the future plans of a navy can not be encyclopedic. Mandsford 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albasco.com[edit]

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

I have looked and can not find enough coverage to establish notability for this company. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Dengero (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AbiCloud[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also promotional in tone, extremely vague and lacking in context, to the point of being borderline patent nonsense: ... software platform for the implementation of cloud computing on computer clusters. It belongs to the Infrastructure as a service flavour of cloud computing. The platform can create and manage virtual servers, networks, storage, and applications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per SoT. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Legislative floor procedure. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floor (legislative)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no indication that this article could become more than a dictionary definition. Another editor's prod was removed, so I am nominating. ALXVA (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NAD. I can't see this becoming anything more than a dictionary definition either. Claritas § 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ My first impression was that it was an unnecessary addition to Template:Parliamentary Procedure, that it was covered somewhere else already, and that it had no potential for expansion. However, I think my first impression was wrong on all three counts. Granted, it's not much: "The floor of a legislature or chamber is the place where members sit and make speeches. When a person is speaking there formally, they are said to have the floor." On the other hand, the rules set by a parliamentary body to govern the legislator's right to speak to the assemblage-- i.e., such as the amount of time that a speaker is allowed to have the floor don't seem to be addressed anywhere. In that regard, there is much that can be said-- speakers are allotted an amount of time on the floor, sometimes they yield that time to other speakers, sometimes they are directed to yield, etc. I think that User:Freakshownerd is on to something here. Mandsford 20:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't what you've just described just parliamentary procdure -- what happens on the "Floor"? Since what happens on the Floor is often spoken into a microphone, should we also have a "Microphone (legislative)" article? I'm kidding of course, but so far as I can see, any way to extend this article would make it into something other than an article covering a legislative body's floor. It would necessarily trun into rules of debate or the like. ALXVA (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Extremely notable and historic subject. Very relavent to an understanding of governmental and parliamentary (so to speak) process. The article is useful in its present form and can be greatly expanded with information from sources such as this one http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm and http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/95-563.pdf covering details of how the respective legislative floors are used and governed. While an expansion of that sort would make it even better, at least our readers are informed by the present article about what is meant generally by the term "floor" as its used in this context. Deleting this subject entirely would only promote ignorance. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are already articles about "how the respective legislative floors are used and governed". I would not won't to promote ignorance, so why not just expand (if need be), the Wiktionary definition? ALXVA (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that there would be an existing article on the subject, but I can't find it, at least not among anything in the template. Of the articles that you've seen, which of them seems to best cover the topic? This may simply be a matter of having the article creator contribute to an existing article. Mandsford 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what aspect, it could be any of the articles about motions. More specific to the Floor, see In order when another has the floor (though this article could probably use a better title). ALXVA (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent find. That poorly titled article that doesn't provide clear context (I assume it's a discussion of British parliamentary floor procedure?) could quite usefully be merged into this article on the broader subject. Sections on the "floor" rules in various legislatures would be quite edifying for anyone interested in the subject. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no indication that this is a dictionary article - no etymology or the like. Removal of a prod is the occasion for discussion at the article's talk page, not a stubborn escalation to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, removal of a proposed deletion should be accompanied by an edit summary and a explanation on the talk page. "Escalation" to AFD is the normal procedure when such is not given. Claritas § 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BRD describes the process when a bold edit such as a prod is made. The onus is on the bold editor to start discussion when their edit is reverted. In this case, the prod was just accompanied by a vague wave and the article's talk page has yet to be used. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to ALXVA for finding the article In order when another has the floor, and to Freakshownerd for identifying a lack within Template:Parliamentary Procedure of any reference to that aspect of procedure. What I see as the solution now is (a) combining the two articles, with this one conforming to the structure of "i.o.w.a.h.t.f."; (b) coming up with a different name than the seven word "i.o.w.a.h.t.f.", perhaps using the words "motion" and "floor"; and (c) adding the merged article into the template, either under "motions" or "concepts" (I'd prefer the former). Had this been discussed on a talk page rather than here, I would not have been aware that there was a problem, and I'd say that goes for most of us. I'd add that, overall, the atmosphere in an AfD is actually more civil than what would find on a talk page and that solutions are more often found to conflicts here. Mandsford 12:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds like a great idea. Would "Legislative floor procedure" or "Floor procedure (deliberative body)" or something like that work for the new/merged article? ALXVA (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both good, I'd go with the first; I'm moving "In order when..." to the new title, changing vote to Merge to Legislative floor procedure (it could just as easily been the other way, with the title of this article renamed and the other one merged to it, but either way, it's a good addition to the project on parliamentary procedure. Mandsford 20:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an advantage to an article on "Legislative floor procedure" as opposed to an article on "floor (legislative)" that covers the procedures? It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me as long as there are redirects, but I do tend to favor simplicity where possible. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an advantage. The concept is really a procedural/metaphorical one, not a physical one, which is why it can be more than a definition this way. The "floor" only seems to matter because of the procedure and any mention of the actual physical place is best in an article about the procedure, not the other way around. I do wish there was a way to work "motion" into the title per Mandsford, but I couldn't think of a way without approaching a long name like IOWAHTF was. I guess reference to procedure covers it anyway. So, if it is not obvious, I change my !vote to Merge, though I won't withdraw the nomination so somebody else can declare this the consensus if it in fact is the consensus. ALXVA (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sobel[edit]

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

I believe this is a non-notable bio and slight advert. Subject, apparently associated with minor non-notable music publications and local radio stations, gives "advice" to up and coming music groups. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources, promotional style. Claritas § 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not any meaningful coverage Vartanza (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage to meet WP:GNG appears to be non existent. Nuttah (talk) 20:11, 16 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

156th army band[edit]

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

I believe this meets deletion criteria as a non-notable organisation, a 23-man military band attached to a National Guard uni deployed to Iraq. Has nothing evidenced to suggest that the unit has extra-notability, don't even believe that a redirect is viable as it is an unlikely search term on Wikipedia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also for editors Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/215th Army Band (United States) for background.--Milowent (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: same rationale as I had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/215th Army Band (United States). bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: agree, not notable as a military unit, however, given that they would perform duties at a high level perhaps the search term is valid, so perhaps a redirect to the parent formation, i.e Louisiana Army National Guard. If this is not fair enough, I believe the article should be deleted for consistency. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 15 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featherlite Trailers[edit]

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

Article provides no evidence of the company being notable per WP:CORP ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable company with ample coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. Nominator is welcome to add additional content citations if he's not satisfied with what is already being used. Doing so would be far more worthwhile than spending time arguing over whether the subject should be deleted entirely (it shouldn't). Freakshownerd (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is welcome to add additional content citations. Additional content citations? It is your job, as the article creator, to list sufficient independent reliable sources. Currently, I don't believe that you have. Most of what is [very poorly] listed is simply the company's own website (not independent), sources from organisations who have received sponsorship money from this company (WP:SIGCOV explicitly excludes "advertising" as an independent source, which is what sponsorship pages basically are), or otherwise self-published.╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No indication that this meets WP:CORP. Perhaps Freakshownerd should read WP:AFD to learn how to make AfD arguments. ALXVA (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Freakshownerd is new here. Though I had never heard of Featherlite, Inc. it's on the NASDAQ exchange (might not be now), and gets significant coverage in the business world [6]. According to this [[7] it had sales in 1998 of $190 million dollars. Seems to meet WP:GNG for me and WP:CORP as well. I do think that it needs to be rewritten in a less promotional fashion, but still, one can't judge notability simply on how the article looks so far. Mandsford 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on NASDAQ, plenty of significant coverage, meets WP:CORP, WP:GNG. Due to the poor state of the article, I'll flag it for rescue. Claritas § 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to keep, but the article needs work. ALXVA (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won industry awards, used by NASCAR, gets news coverage. Click on the Google news link at the top of the AFD. See? Simple. Dream Focus 05:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. The vast majority of the references only prove that this company sponsors a lot of events. There isn't any indication that Nascar uses their products widely, only that this company is good at giving away their products for free to Nascar (and other events). SnottyWong talk 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do not give it away for free. If you read the article it says

Featherlite is closely associated with NASCAR. The company created the first ever custom aluminum race car semi trailer for NASCAR racer Dale Earnhardt and team owner Richard Childress. Today Featherlite is the official trailer of NASCAR]][4] and supplies approximately 85 percent of NASCAR Sprint Cup teams with semi trailer race car haulers and vending trailers. Among the teams Featherlite has supplied are those of Dale Earnhardt Jr., Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson.

A super famous racer ordered one, and now everyone in NASCAR uses it. Dream Focus 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi. I'm the user who created this article. I think it should be kept, but I'm still pretty new to the editing standards here. I do think that Featherlite is a notable company, and I know for a fact that most of the Nascar car haulers are Featherlite trailers, among others. Full disclosure, though--I know this because a friend of mine works there. Anyway, the best place to start, it seems, is to get some other sources if I understand this correctly? User:Heartfelt Leaflet —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. Let's not discourage this new editor who wants to do right by this article and learn the ways of this mysterious encyclopedia.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vent we should all be ashamed of ourselves re this editor: User:Heartfelt Leaflet. In 15 months since their 1st contribution, not a welcome, prod notice or Afd notice was placed on their talk page by any of us. That is no way to grow this encyclopedia.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per new sources and information given. Given, I have heard of this company many, many times, but then again, NASCAR is pretty big here. Company easily meets WP:CORP, it just needs some work. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:32, 18 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Shomo[edit]

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

Was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability is debatable but indicated in the article. — Zhernovoi (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the notability from WP:MUSIC was included. 76.252.203.242 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if we do delete Caleb's page, then what are we going to redirect it to: DJ Club or Attack Attack!? Again, my decision is keep. 99.130.147.103 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (which, for the benefit of the IP, is not the same as redirect). Absolutely no sign of meeting WP:GNG. I42 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Pond[edit]

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

Article about a temporary geographical feature. The source in the article mentions it in lowercase as 'a temporary pond'. Google maps has picked it up in uppercase, but I don't think that's an RS. Article created by a banned sockpuppet. BPMullins | Talk 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, I can find no verification that a body of water called "Temporary Pond" exists in the Richmond area. As noted by the nominator, the only reference refers to "a temporary pond", not a named lake. The article might have been created as a joke. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX, content isn't attributable to the source given, source only refers to "a temporary pond", not a named lake. Maashatra11 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O'funk'illo[edit]

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

Afd to identify notability of the subject. — Zhernovoi (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of chocolate bars in Canada[edit]

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

Per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTCATALOG, this does not seem to be a suitable list. It's also unreferenced (apart from a spam link I've removed), and appears to mainly consist of original research. List of chocolate bar brands adequately deals with chocolate bars produced globally. Claritas § 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a silly idea for a list to begin with, and I'm generally very sympathetic to lists. This would be a silly idea for a category, for that matter. It is what it says it is, a list of names of candy bars that editors have apparently seen for sale in the Dominion of Canada, and a very boring and useless list at that (one can click on the names of the ones that they don't recognize to find out what they consist of and, if you're not in Canada, whether they're unique to Canada, or might be available where you live). Besides being original research of the type where one goes to the candy aisle, there's also the more obvious question of whether we need a list of chocolate bars sold in any particular nation. A list of chocolate bars in Canada sets a precedent for other articles of candies by country, such as "List of peppermints in Paraguay". I say bar this list of bars. Mandsford 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the possibility of a "List of toffees in Transnitria".... Claritas § 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. Also spotted dick is a not a chocolate bar in Canada.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I'm hoping that nobody has relied on this article. Imagine asking a cashier, "Excuse me, do you have a..." Mandsford 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of candy bars for sale in Canada has not been treated by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really seems like a non-notable list Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy DiGelsomina[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nominator --Snowded ^TALK 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nominator -- Andy DiGelsomina (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete despite the grand claims in the article, nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 16 June 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) 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Rubashkin[edit]

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

The subject of OTRS email 2010061110029759, this blatantly fails WP:BLP1E. All the coverage is from his conviction. Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a wealth of available sources establishes notability beyond the criminal activity. CEO of significant operation -- significant both in the context of the agricultural setting in which it was located and in the context of kosher food production for American Jews; the article briefly addresses the latter and there is a need for expansion on the former (in lieu of deletion). Re OTRS, I have to wonder whether it is really established that Wikipedia has been contacted by Rubashkin, who is currently in jail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the sources don't cover his other actions as CEO, do they? Just his source. And no, it wasn't Rubashkin, but thank you for the inference that I'm either lying or unable to read an email correctly. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do -- and given that there is something approaching 1000 news articles (plus coverage in books and scholarly articles) on him I can imagine it would be difficult to form that kind of judgement in a brief period. As for inference -- I implied nothing of the sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So he has coverage... for a single event, is what you're saying. Show me, then, that his work as CEO got significant coverage and not just his arrest and conviction. You assumed that I'd meant I was contacted by Rubashkin via OTRS, and then said that this was unlikely because he's in prison. The presumption there is either 1) "it's unlikely, he's in jail, Ironholds obviously can't read" or "it's unlikely, he's in jail, Ironholds is lying". Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I didn't understand Nomoskedasticity to be suggesting either of those things; I thought xe was suggesting that the person claiming to be Sholom might in fact be someone else. That sort of thing has happened before. As far as coverage of Sholom's activities other than the crimes, I'd just note that he's all over the book Postville (listed under "Further reading" and viewable at Google Books[8]).--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how many "fraudsters" become famous, but most of it is news related and needs rewriting to become encyclopaedic. Furthermore (and more importantly), there isn't any reason of worldwide recognition, which is contrary to the policy on WP:ANYBIO. Minima c (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources only cover his conviction. Fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but then merge to Agriprocessors. I do think he is notable, but the article contains no content about him that isn't better covered in the company article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nearly two dozen articles in the NY Times alone; note particularly this one [9], which demonstrates just how high-profile the criminal cases (plural) involving him have become. An archive GNews search shows significant coverage even before the fraud/child labor/illegal immigrant issues became public, eg [10] [11]. Not to mention the scholarly book about his business activities and their effects. [12] comment added by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, [13]
Keep but then merge as per. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Extensive press coverage. Agriprocessors had other issues; they had problems under previous managers years before Sholom R. took over. Note that R. had a well-funded PR operation lobbying for a shorter sentence.[14] Some of that activity may have spilled over onto Wikipedia. At least 3 single purpose accounts edited the article in the April 23-27 period. --John Nagle (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. --ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opening sentence says "He was responsible for creating the largest kosher meat supplier in the world, and largely through his efforts, kosher meat became available in supermarket chains across the country". That makes him notable right there, he even getting coverage for it[15]. He has received news coverage for things other than the raid. [16] He had problems with PETA investigating him with hidden cameras at his business, which got news years before. So that's three things he's gotten news coverage for, news media publishing his comments, etc. Dream Focus 05:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. There is material on him in addition to his conviction--multiple stories in general and Jewish papers-- a major national figure in his field & would have been even if the conviction had never occurred. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. I have placed the ((current)) on the article's page and ((Controversial)) on its talk page. The subject of this article has turned into, well, a big subject with many articles in many important newspapers and media sources. Not quite sure how this article gets to be nominated for deletion, it's been around for over three years. On the contrary, it needs work to become a serious WP:NPOV article befitting a serious WP:BIO, but NOT "deletion" for goodness sakes. Sholom Rubashkin is presently the focus of a major trial and has garnered total support among all sectors of American Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic Judaism. He is a major Chabad Lubavitch lay personality by dint of his (former) wealth and status. Articles and ads pleading on his behalf appear weekly in the English language American Haredi Yated, Hamodia and Orthodox The Jewish Press. At this time, among many American Orthodox Jews, his cause and attaining exoneration and freedom is on a par with the the tragi-sagas of the French Dreyfus affair and the Russian Beilis trial. Anyhow, a few simple Google searches for "Rubashkin news" (yields over 800,000 hits); "Sholom Rubashin" (over 200,000); "Rubashkin trial" (over 30,000); "Rubashkin scandal" (over 100,000); "Rubashkin case" (over 280,000); etc etc etc, whichever way one slices it, this has become a BIG story about someone who, even had he never landed in court, would have been worthy of a biography based in his achievements in becoming the BIGGEST supplier of kosher meat in north America over the last 25 years. Therefore, what is called for is a balanced, NPOV and detailed biography of this man and the complex story that now surrounds him. IZAK (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. The article is only focusing on his trials and conviction; it only needs to be fleshed out with biographical data to make it acceptable to everyone. Yoninah (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASHERJAY[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Apart from a reference to Asherjay's own site none of the references mentions Asherjay. (They do mention the designer Asher Jay, but notability is not inherited.) The article is essentially spammy in character. (Note: PROD was removed without explanation by SPA.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maxxsonics. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MB Quart[edit]

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

Fails to meet the ORG requirements. I suggest this article is userfied as sufficient information may be sourced in the long term (possibly from other language sources), however few English Google News articles are available to demonstrate impact or justify not redirecting to Maxxsonics. Fæ (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is coverage in Gnews and as the article focuses on the history of this company a simple redirection to Maxxsonics seems insufficient. Dewritech (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete userfy or redirect as per nom. Its two lines of uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. MB Quart was quite a big name in the 70s to 90s (no comments on their SQ, which was atrocious :) but the $tereophile reviewers, as usually, gave it two thumbs up). WP:ORG is hardly applicable here as it's about the brand (products) not the organization. Current news and magazine searches aren't of much use since the real MB Quart, as I understand, folded down around 2000; presently it is simply a badge plastered on something else. East of Borschov (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you are mistaken about the scope of WP:ORG, it has a section specially about products. There is even a handy shortcut to it: PRODUCT. Fæ (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite right. But redirecting to Hifonics is a very bad choice. The practice does not really support this approach. Hifonics owns rights for the MB Quart badge, nothing more. The situation is akin to the case of Cord Automobile: there is an article on Cord, but it is separate from Aviation Corporation, the company that purchased Cord's wrecked business... Or consider the case of Akai which became merely a badge auctioned by its dealers to the highest bidder. The dealers are perfectly non-notable. Should MB Quart article be written, its referenced part will end up at around 1999, when MB Quarts were last reviewed in mainstream mags. All this info does not belong to Hifonics. East of Borschov (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maxxsonics as they hold the right to the brand name and it is already mentioned in the Maxxsonics article. Movementarian (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Land (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page for "Virgin Land" only contains a single entry which contains the term, Virgin Lands Campaign. The other entries are: 1. a red link and 2. a link to Frontier, which the author states is synonymous with "Virgin land" but as we all know, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOTDIC. Pstanton (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Number 1 is a redirect. I only listed the second since Virgin land redirects to Frontier.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Virgin Land as malplaced dab. (I think the Virgin land redirect to Frontier should be deleted, since the article makes no mention of "virgin land", but that's an issue for RfD.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of entries. Move per JHunterJ. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the Doctor Who entry to the title. It is the only article with "Virgin Land" title on Wikipedia. The only other possibility to frontier can possibly be put as a hatnote. Tavix | Talk 02:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous topics do not have to have complete articles, so long as they are ambiguous and mentioned. See MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 17 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jalápagos[edit]

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

neologism without common parlance Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The phrase Galapagos Syndrome does seems to have appeared in a number of major newspapers. If it doesn't merit its own article, surely we can find an appropriate place to redirect to, such as Japanese mobile phone culture. --Milowent (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This article: Slowing Japan's Galapagos Syndrome from Huffington Post indicates it does not only apply to cellphones but to the isolationist Japanese culture in general. It has also been applied to US auto makers one available citation for example. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Even in absence of common parlance, reasonable notability appears to be established by articles in the New York Times, Japan Times, CNET, Washington Post, and Wired. Also, as Dr.K. points out, a redirect would be complicated because the term appears to be used in contexts outside of mobile phones. — C M B J 00:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CMBJ's additional sources which are reliable secondary sources which indicate that this term is widespread enough to satisfy notability criteria. Its use is apparently diverse enough to include phenomena other than those related to Japanese cellphones, which makes it an unlikely target for a redirect. Possibly rename to: Galapagos Syndrome Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Galapagos Syndrome, the term used by multiple third-party reliable sources as shown above. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved back to Galápagos syndrome where I created the article. It is the wording used in the NY Times, but it can't be moved there. I don't have the ability to move to an occupied redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no brief on whether to use the accent. Either way, the other spelling should redirect to the final choice. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with either solution. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Tyrer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Autobiography of a young broadcaster. Besides the one story in a local newspaper (referenced in the article), I can't find any additional reliable sources that demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. I'm happy to change my mind if additional sources can be found. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 1 gnews hit when he was a school kid. [17] blatant self promotion. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Autobiography of a minor (in more ways than one), sporadic announcer on a minor station. Per WP:LOCAL: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." --Closeapple (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wish him the best of luck, but he doesn't meet either the WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Matsunaga[edit]

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

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability, subject might be failing WP:BIO and WP:ENT. — Zhernovoi (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Start Records[edit]

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

Can't find any significant coverage of this company so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 12 June 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:G10. So Why 08:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churrl[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It maybe a possible attack. Triwbe (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G10 as a (racist) attack page. I've tagged it as such. Claritas § 08:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nilan Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. He's apparently appeared onscreen on the show Glee at some point, but IMDb doesn't have a listing for him whatsoever. As for coverage, there's this "local boy made good" story in his hometown paper, the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, and nothing else whatsoever in GNews or GNews archive. He seems to have done some backing work on a few albums by other people, but evidently nothing significant enough to be mentioned anywhere. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as well as WP:ENT. By the way, the article is an apparent autobiography from User:Marknilanjr. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Woods[edit]

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

Bio of outdoor writer/abstract painter. Notability asserted through claims of having "highly sought-after" art, but I can't find any coverage of this artist via Gnews, and doing searches for "Allison Woods" + art/artwork doesn't turn up anything. I don't think being a columnist for a publication that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article counts for notability either. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 12 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Muirhead[edit]

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

per WP:ONEEVENT. The subject did not have an article until the allegations of child pornography were made - this is a fairly strong indication that subject is only notable for the allegations. Basically, this article exists for the sole purpose of recording the highly damaging allegations. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Mattinbgn, although Collectors is popular within its niche, he's at best of limited notability on our terms, and creating an article just because he was charged with a serious offense is going to be a problem. If this turns out to be a high-profile case then there may be an argument, but at the moment the article will just serve to air unproven allegations. - Bilby (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mattinbgn's argument is also a clear argument for CSD, and I've nominated it accordingly. St Anselm (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I have declined the speedy because it is both referenced and neutral in tone (despite being about a negative event) 7 07:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course - while a case could be made for entire negativity, I missed the bit about it needing to be unsourced to qualify. St Anselm (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has already been noted on the Collectors page Reubot (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Very strange to create the article at this time. He was entirely notable through his media work, but I'd have waited until the outcome of judicial proceedings before creating the article. The article has very little merit as it stands, and looks WP:POINTY. Tony (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entry appears to have been created in response to the recent charge laid against Mr Muirhead. The article is unbalanced. It says little about Mr Muirhead's career and life prior to this charge being laid. Andy has yet to have his day in court and we are yet to hear his side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpmck (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) — Lpmck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Delete - As flagged by Tony, Muirhead could possibly have been regarded as a notable figure, but that remains an ex post facto justification since the article was only created as a vehicle for discussion about this single event. Delete per nom. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I created the article. I did so to make a few redlinks turn blue. I feel that notability is the only potential problem with the article. I don't have an opinion as to whether he is notable enough. I'd like to say that his child porn charges make him more notable, not less so. If he was notable due to his media career, then he is notable now. The article is not defamatory. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the thrust of Richard Cavell's comment. Rather than see the article deleted I think it could be expanded with more details of Andy Muirhead's media career along the lines of articles about other Australians who have fallen foul of the law, eg former cricket umpire Steve Randell or ABC reporter Peter Lloyd, neither of whom in my opinion were as well known to most Australians (ie notable) as was Andy Muirhead before the news of the charges against him became public. Did anyone suggest that Lloyd's article should be deleted when he was (1) arrested, (2) convicted, (3) released, or (4) when he resumed working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Shortshadow (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised that this has only just been created and that it is only a stub. Given the circumstances, it will have to be watched for BLP issues. However, he is a well-known media figure in Australia, the host of a popular program on national television. Wikipedia should have an article about him - obviously a much better one than this is so far. Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I operate under the assumption of good faith and do believe the article was created in good faith. The version of the article that I saw did not contain anything that contravened BLP, although it could do with more information about the person's career. Reg Evans did not have an article until after his death, something I only realised (with a little embarrassment), after updating and adding references to that article. Sometimes a media event is what is needed to remind editors that someone doesn't have a wikipedia article. Format (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ weak Keep - Wikipedia sets a terribly high bar for the inclusion of any scandalous content in a BLP, and rightly so. The article is currently a two and a half line stub, with one of them dealing with reputation-shattering allegations. This is a blatant BLP issue - The unproven allegations must go, and without them the article is a one-line stub. Delete the article now, unless immediately rewritten with some non-scandalous content. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it an "unproven allegation" is misleading to say the least - he's been arrested, for gods sake, and it's been reported in every newspaper in the country. Rebecca (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He has not yet been formally charged, far less convicted, therefore I'd say "unproven allegation" is pretty much spot on. I have amended my reccomendation in light of the changes made in the last day, however while the pornography issue remains a mere allegation I still believe it should stay right out of the article on BLP grounds. Wikipedia shouldn't be preemptively deciding this man's guilt. We're an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, apparently he has been charged. My mistake. We're still not a crystal ball though. I'd say wait til he's convicted.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While you all sat around grumbling, I went and found some sources and expanded the article to include his career. So all the arguments for deletion are now invalid. A WP:TROUT to the article creator for creating such an unbalanced article in the first place, a TROUT to the nominator for citing ONEEVENT when he is not just known for charge, and a TROUT for everyone who voted deleted while knowing he is notable and not bothering to improve the article. Fences&Windows 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep your TROUT to yourself! Nothing you have added to the article changes my opinion that this article would not currently exist except for the unproven allegations made. I still would have nominated the article based on WP:ONEEVENT if I had run across the article in its current state. The subject is marginally notable and is now best known for unsavoury, unproven allegations. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difficulty is that what is now produced is an article about someone who has done a bit in his career, all of which is overshadowed by current unproven allegations. I'd be much happier deleting the article and revisiting it later, when the current issues are either proven or able to be placed in a wider context. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's all of three sentences in the article explaining the charges against him, which hardly seems excessive. There's also plenty more that could be said about him, considering that it dedicates all of about five words to the role which he's nationally known for. If someone famous does something scandalous, we don't delete their article all of a sudden - we document it with appropriate sourcing and weight, and watch the article like a hawk. Rebecca (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we do. I guess the question for me is how we handle these problems with people of marginal fame, and whether or not the model you describe is the best approach in this particular case. The Herald Sun has some rather well-reasoned comments on this sort of situation, although I'm aware that others will see it differently. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My expansion of the article was just the start. He is notable for his TV and comedy career, and regardless of the way the article was started we can't delete the article just because of the recent allegation. It's irrelevant now that the article was started recently, it is sourced and now pretty neutral. BLP doesn't say "don't ever write about people who have just been publicly accused of a crime." The solution is to debate the depth of inclusion (if any!) of this accusation in his bio on the talk page, and to continue expanding the article - or is everyone else's edit button not working? Fences&Windows 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's creator - I support the changes that Fences&Windows has made to the article. It was my intention in starting the article to allow for that kind of improvement, not to work against it. I do not presume that the subject is guilty of the charge made against him, nor do I assume that if he is guilty, that he is truly a paedophile. I maintain that he is notable. The BLP policy requires negative information to be sourced and reasonable, and I think that the current article is both of those things. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as host of a TV show that has attained quite a following (about 1 million, according to this, which is undeniably significant per WP:ENT). Not to mention he was also the host of a show on one of Hobart's main radio stations. I'm not sure how this could be construed as WP:ONEEVENT. Frickeg (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the host of a popular, nationally-known TV show, who most definitely should have had an article prior to this. There's undoubtedly BLP issues concerning the criminal charges - so make sure any mention of them well-sourced and of appropriate length, and protect or semi-protect as needed. It's completely ridiculous to claim that that's all he's known for because someone forgot to write an article on him prior to this. Rebecca (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as host of a national TV show. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. only reason he didn't have an article before is that no-one had got around to making it. He was the presenter of a national TV program and did radio in Hobart. The events are terrible and really test our BLP values, however I feel he is too notable to not have an article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even dismissing the allegations against him he appears to be notable. The article will need to be watched to ensure the BLP policy is followed but that is not a reason to delete the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would be happy for the charges to be left out and only be included if he is convicted - why the show is of TV can then be explained in less specific terms. I am surprised he has not had an entry before this as he certainly qualifies under the terms of WP:ENT with multiple significant TV, Radio and stage appearances.Porturology (talk) 01:53, 18 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal superbase[edit]

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

Long standing unreferenced tag and search did not produce any independent usage of the term. Article title is apparently a neologism. Delete per WP notability and OR criteria. RDBury (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google News, Books or Scholar indicates lack of notability, and together with lack of references suggests original research. --Qwfp (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly OR. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the name is probably OR. - There's original research here, but the linguistic discussion of the short and long scales, myriads, lakh/crore, the Knuth -yllion system, seems a reasonable topic of discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a suitable merge target or move target that might eliminate the neologism objection? A source that addresses these topics or similar would be helpful in assessing what to do, but I can't seem to find anything suitable (which is not to say that such sources do not exist, just that it seems to be a difficult topic on which to get useful information out of google). Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Park flag[edit]

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

Non-notable neighborhood emblem. (Contested PROD.) Glenfarclas (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Possible merge with Humboldt Park, Chicago, although given that it's not an official flag, even that seems doubtful. Hairhorn (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Louisiana Army National Guard. this falls as an article so for the test case this has to be a delete but there is a clear consensus to redirect and that seems a sensible compromise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

215th Army Band (United States)[edit]

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

This is a test case for numbered U.S. Army bands, non-combat sub-units of no more than 50. In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these units, I believe, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deprodded this, because my quick impression was that some army bands may be notable on their own by meeting WP:N, where i wouldn't expect something like the 722nd Ordnance Company to get the same amount of coverage. I saw that some sources about this particular army band do exist but haven't been added to the article yet. If some bands are not independently notable, maybe there is a place where a merger can take place.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massachusetts National Guard, the major command. I understand the reason for nomination, however I believe redirecting these types of articles is a better option than deletion as it a) preserves the history and b) discourages recreation. Movementarian (Talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Should I add a one-sentence mention to Massachusetts National Guard and redirect? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, mentioning them in the main article seems like a good idea to me. Movementarian (Talk) 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The band itself is not notable as a military unit, and since military bands tend to be high-visibility (almost civil relations), they get coverage in the local papers when they visit. I can't judge their notability as a band, however, perhaps we can ask WikiProject Marching band? bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: not large enough, I think, to satisfy WP:GNG, however, it is probably a possibly search term so redirect makes sense, I feel. In this case to the Mass National Guard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 18:12, 13 June 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. Most of the delete arguments are by assertion and fail to spell out under policy why this individual is nn and the keep arguments are policy grounded Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable religious person. 1st article was deleted, and the 2nd was no consensus. Subject is not notable, and should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this famous guru in our Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition a "non-notable religious person"? He gave sannyasa to the very notable A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, who brought the Hare Krishna movement to the Western countries and made it a household name, and was also the guru of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, who aged 89 is still travelling the globe preaching, and has many thousands of followers. To us, and also objectively speaking, he is in no way "non-notable".

Please see http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-yoga-masters/778-srila-bhakti-prajnana-kesava-gosvami.html and http://www.bvml.org/SBPKM/index.htm for articles by and about this famous saint in our line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If this person is "famous" in your tradition, please provide multiple independent reliable sources that say why he is notable. The above links are not reliable sources, and the person is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent, reliable references to that are already provided in the article, and there're more sources out there.Gaura79 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the last nomination. There're reliable, independent sources covering the subject of the article.Gaura79 (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While there are sources for the article, there are not multiple independent reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there're multiple, reliable sources covering Bhaktiprajnana Kesava. Some of them are cited in the article. He's notable as a Gaudiya Vaishnava saint, as religious leader, as a founder of a notable religious institution, and as a sannyasa guru of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.Gaura79 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual is still not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he not notable, may I ask you? Is it because he's covered in multiple, reliable sorces and is a Gaudiya Vaishnava saint?Gaura79 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - nothing changed from previous AfD, but I will change the vote to Strong keep when the recent [18] book gets published by a reliable publisher. There should be some additional biographical coverage in that study. Wikid ^as© 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea that this person is a Gaudiya Vaishnava saint is just not true. There is no evidence for this. His was an associate of Bhaktivedanta Swami, and a mention on that page is enough (and its already there). This person is not notable, just an associate of one, and that is why the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that argument is based on being a GV saint. There is no such a thing as GV saint really as it is a borrowed concept. No cannonization and no process to confirm or not a person to be a saint. Obviously one can be notable guru without being a saint. Wikid ^as© 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this guru is not notable. He is associated with a notable person, but that does not make him notable. Aside from this association, there is nothing notable about this individual. That is why the article should be deleted, especially as the info is already on that page already. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However that is not what reliable sources say. While I agree that his notability is connected with being sannyasa guru of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Wikid ^as©

He is not the subject of any reliable sources that treat him as notable. He is only discussed in sources as an associate of Bhaktivedanta Swami. There are no reliable sources that say he is a notable religious leader beyond that, much less a Gaudiya Vaishnava saint. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating yourself and that is disruptive. We heard your rationale but the fact remains that he is covered by multiple reliable source with and without regard to Bhaktivedanta Swami being an associate or a guru. That is the definition of general notability, eg being covered by multiple reliable sources. It has nothing to do per se with being "Gaudiya Vaishnava saint". However that can be disputed if you look at these images of his murti being worshiped in public. [19][20]. Is he not a deified person if his murti is worshiped? However being a saint or not is immaterial, the crux of the matter is the fact that he is satisfying the general notability guideline. Wikid ^as© 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in this case is not based on the fact that he is associated or worked with someone famous. But with the fact that he is covered in a multiple reliable sources. Wikid ^as© 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the notability being what? The only sources that talk about him fall within Notability is not inherited. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you obviously did not read the article.Wikid ^as© 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insult me. I have read both article and discussions. Still, the only sources that talk about this fall within Notability is not inherited. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology if you felt insulted. But there are sources already cited in the article that do not talk about him only in his relationship with his sannyasa disciple A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Specifically citation 5 and 6. There is no reason to claim that it is inherited notability, however I agree that it is mainly because of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada that he is notable. Wikid ^as© 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These citations do not extend beyond Notability is not inherited. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktiprajnana Kesava was also a founder of a notable Gaudiya Vaishnava religious organization Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti. Massimo Introvigne in his book Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia dedicated a whole chapter to describe the Italian branch, called Vaishnava Gaudiya Vedanta.Gaura79 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is very misleading. First it is not a chapter - it is a listing of religious organizations in Italy, and this particular bio is of no importance there either. The text is over 1000 pages and the person is not mentioned. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entry in a major Encyclopedia in Italian language. It is of importance here, because it turns out that Bhaktiprajnana Kesava was also a founder of a notable religious organization. And yes, it is an article in an Encyclopedia and it is exclusively dedicated to the Italian branch of the organization, founded by Bhaktiprajnana Kesava in India some 70 years ago.Gaura79 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Teague[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, recreation of previously deleted article. There's more content this time, but it's all sourced to one interview, which is the only source I could find apart from an imdb entry. I'm pretty confident this person does not meet our notability requirements. GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This individual seems to be notable as he is listed at IMDB as an animator on several projects over a number of years. The article as it sits should be deleted due to the nature of the writing, which reads like a bumbling life history, including data on his parents that is anecdotal, rather than citing his accomplishments that would be interesting to the average reader. If the article is not drastically improved in both tone and form, it should be deleted. With some work, however, the article could certainly be saved. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i cannot find any other references that show any notability beyond the one interview here, which while establishing his existence, doesnt count as a reliable source to show notability. it would make an acceptable external link if he was notable. there is a david teague who cowrote final cut pro 3 the book, but this david teague would surely have mentioned that on his personal sites if it is him. his credits in film i dont believe justify an article, no credits as the senior editor or animator, or major animator on an award winning or highly notable piece. i did not check all the above find source suggestions, though. i dont think its necessary, if IMDB doesnt show notability (i know its not reliable, but its unlikely to underplay someones notability, only overplay with uncredited apearances)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failing WP:GNG is not an ipso-facto automatic failure of WP:ENT. A long, diverse career as a writer, cartoonist, director, actor, filmmaker and comedian, give it depth. Yes, having only one significant and in-depth article at Retrocrush as a source is naturally a concern. But guideline does not demand immediate perfection, and it would seem that since addressing the concern would simply require work... such surmountable concerns are not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that its inappropriate to consider only one aspect of any persons notability, say professor but not author. I also agree that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. but, i still dont see a level of notability here for an article. Retrocrush is not very notable, at least per our WP article. If someone can show some reliable sources, print or internet, to help demonstrate notability, I am happy with leaving it relatively poorly written until someone can add the references. i just couldnt find anything.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be agreeable to it being moved from mainspace and placed in WP:Incubation for continued work. Might you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on his long career involved in many notable media. Dream Focus 07:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Sure, he's done a bunch of stuff, but was any of it notable (or, was his contribution to it notable)? SnottyWong talk 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have had significant roles, which is why there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. I thought the credits as a director might be good, except that IMDB lists most of these as "uncredited" or "unknown episodes" ([21], [22] etc). Maybe they were significant roles, maybe they weren't, but without verifiable information we cannot know. By all means put it in incubation to see if better sources are available, but it shouldn't be brought back to mainspace unless those sources are found. Quantpole (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Gold 1998[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [23]. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good find by Joe. This one debuted at #1 on Billboard's Reggae Albums chart, stayed on that chart for 85 weeks, spent 8 weeks in the Billboard Top 200: [24]. Location (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Axis Powers Hetalia episodes[edit]

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

no useful content. contested prod. Jack Merridew 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is moar appropriately covered on teh wikia; wikia:hetalia:List of Hetalia: Axis Powers Episodes -- Jack Merridew 03:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All notable series have a list article for their episodes to be listed. I already asked the one contributor of that article over there to duplicate their stuff over here. Since their last edit on that wiki was an hour ago, they should still be around to notice. Just be patient. If you deleted the article, it'd just be recreated tomorrow when the content was available. Dream Focus 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importing from teh Wikia? That's a new one. And during an AfD, too. WP:GTD say anything about this? Jack Merridew 03:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Also, the conversation to do so was started right after I deprodded it, and before you nominated this for deletion. [25] Dream Focus 03:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone actually inserts a list of episodes there. The list is 6 months old, so it's time to make it have some content or for it to go. Of course recreation with suitable content is allowed. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Redirect to Axis Powers Hetalia until such time as someone actually wants to take the time to craft a list suitable for Wikipedia, rather than Wikia. As noted on the A/M project page, the Wikia page is not suitable for straight import due to the excessive, non-free images (and really, the summaries seem like teasers, though at the length of these eps, they may be more whole than first glance would make you believe). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May change this depending on clarity of guidelines re transwikiing FROM wikia, which is not a reliable source and is of questionable quality and usefuless as is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, but also agree the summaries should just be dumped or replaced. While it seems like it was "okay" to use the ones from Wikia, there is still the issue of Wikia not being a reliable source and the summaries are really not up to Wikipedia standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Axis Powers Hetalia until someone gets around to writing these up from scratch -- agree with AnmaFinotera that the Wikia ones need a fair amount of work, given they don't really actually summarize the entire episode. Until such time, an empty list is not something to keep around. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did indeed get around to it, so keep. Standard sort of spin-off from an article on a notable subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axis Powers Hetalia per above, a redirect will do for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised to Keep Contesnt has now been added and per current discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There, see it now? The article isn't blank anymore, but has all the episodes listed. The format isn't perfect, but it works. I contacted the person who did this over at Wiki, who agreed to help with this article. Any reason to continue this pointless AFD now? Dream Focus 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious....according to that list, most of the episodes had no titles, so where did the titles that are listed (besides just episode X) come from? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreferenced and teh tag says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." This was also a copypasta, not a transwiki, and I'd like to hear back from Flatscan about the propriety of this. Jack Merridew 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew asked me to comment. I don't see a licensing problem here. The Hetalia Wiki is compatibly licensed under CC-BY-SA, and a number of steps were taken to indicate the original source:
Dream Focus includes full URL in edit summary (diff)

AnmaFinotera adds a note as dictated by wikia:community:Community Central:Licensing#Using Wikia content (diff)

Malkinann adds Category:Articles with imported Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 text (diff)

Malkinann adds ((Interwiki copy)) to the Talk page (diff) —added later Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where are the reliable sources independent of the subject? Redirect only just encourages this stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after checking if the transwiki was okay an episode list is a commonly acceptable spinout article for a series. I've imported a lead to the article from the main Axis Powers Hetalia page, which details its distribution through independent RSes and cited all of the episode dates to the official website for the series, barring the first special. --Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove any plot summaries that may have come from Wikia. We should be able to write our own summaries and not have to copy them from elsewhere, even if the Wikia's content is as a free-use compatible license. —Farix (t | c) 23:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering? ;) It's okay to use Wikia's summaries iff the licenses are compatible and if the text was ported correctly. --Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which it wasn't; copypasta. Jack Merridew 01:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A hyperlink is required for attribution within Wikipedia, a hyperlink was and is provided on the base of the page here. We're still waiting to hear if this transwiki was inappropriate. --Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the anime nor have any desire to watch it. So no, I am not volunteering. However, to clear the article of any copyright concerns, I think coming up with new episode summaries would be better than copying episode summaries from somewhere else. It far better for Wikipedia to have its own episode summaries instead of copying summaries from somewhere else. We shouldn't be copying text from anywhere unless it is to quote it. —Farix (t | c) 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're still waiting to hear if the transwiki was inappropriate. If it was not appropriate, the copied material and episode summaries can be deleted and the article histpurged. If it was appropriate, or can be easily made to be so, then the copied material and episode summaries should be preserved. --Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; episode list articles are always suitable separate content from the article on the television series itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will the attribution note on the talk page still be necessary once the episode summaries have been rewritten/replaced? The only other information that was copied which doesn't seem to be directly available in the provided sources (unless that has changed since it was pointed out above) is the episode titles; once those are sourced, the entire table could be trivially recreated from scratch without losing any information anyways. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once the summaries are gone, the attribution is no longer necessary. The list of titles and dates itself isn't something that needs attribution as anyone could pull the same list of ANN or any other source, reliable or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the copied plot summaries are not the right tone for Wikipedia, accidental derivation is less likely. Whoever rewrites the list should be mindful of these considerations. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there is actual content on the page. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that, as the anonymous editor above me said, there is actual content there. Sure, it could maybe do with a little more work, but I think it's good enough now to be kept. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:59, 19 June 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 WP:CSD#G11, repeatedly recreated bythe same WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Flynns[edit]

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

Band with little notability; no gnews hits, and basically all the ghits are listed in the article. No publicity from major music magazines. Doesn't seem to fit WP:BAND. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per [26], [27], [28], and [29]. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Godfrey[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS violation. Not every contactee deserves a page. Only those who have received notice from WP:FRINGE#Independent sources, not just those news services who like to hype stories that are news of the weird. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "notable abductee". Godfrey is certainly mentioned in the few sources given, but these are passing mentions and he is never the sole subject of the coverage. Delete or Redirect to alien abduction claimants. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alan Godfrey's only claim to notability is the coverage of his supposed abduction. WP:ONEEVENT. Grim²³ ★ 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Sound 2008 Annual[edit]

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

Like the 2009 Annual which was deleted in AfD, this fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and 2009 issue. To keep this from becoming a weekley thing lets also add to the mix :

and for the avoidance of doubt, I think should be Deleted Codf1977 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 June 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. The issue of redirecting or merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hall (American)[edit]

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

notability not asserted. Little content. One reference given is very minor mention. Gwinva (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Numerous sources indicate that he was the first person to commercially cultivate cranberries in the United States. However, I'm not sure there is enough to say about him from these sources to justify an article. As a second choice, merge to Cranberry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a stub article for sure, but being the first to cultivate a crop is notable. I added references including one from the University of Maine. Movementarian (Talk) 10:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be significant coverage of him in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cranberry. The article reflects the same one or two factoids that are found in all four sources, and the same thing already exists in Cranberry. Location (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant historical gfigure in his field, with adequate sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's enough sourcing to provide one line (ie. that he was the first to cultivate cranberries) but one fact does not make an article, and there appears to be a paucity of information about any other aspect of his life. A merge to Cranberry might be appropriate. It can always be spun out again if sources are found at a later date to write a biography. Gwinva (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per Gwinva. I didn't dig terribly deeply, but every mention of Captain Hall that I could find consisted of a sentence or two about the cultivation of cranberries. A couple sentences isn't enough for an article, but I think he deserves a mention in the cranberry article. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Mario B. Maximiano[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 June 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 copyvio. Apparently not notable anyway. Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis A.F.C[edit]

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

non-notable football (soccer) club with no independent reference sources or info found for it and/or league. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local team. Giant Snowman 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - team does not play at a notable level (when a club's website features more photos of the players "down the pub" than actually playing football it's generally a sign that it's a "social" club rather than a serious sporting one). Note also that entire contents are copied straight from the club's own website -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went ahead and nominated the papge for speed deletion as a copyvio. Movementarian (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (A) Non-notable team in non-notable league. (B) It's a copyvio of their website (meaning one of the players probably posted it here). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilah B. Creekmur[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thx for the info expressing why Jamilah B. Creekmur may be deleted. Im VERY new at wiki, and would like to keep everything as simple and basic as possible. I've edited the bio, and compiled all information from notable sources. I do know that she's an author, and business woman, very known in the entertainment and music world. How can I include the only the necessary info so that as an author and COO she stays up? thank you Suganique (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)— Suganique (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This person is without a doubt, a 'person of note' I respectfully ask why this article is pending deletion Geekmaster1 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)— Geekmaster1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Subject is not notable enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two dissenters above are sockpuppets or at least meatpuppets. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no actual evidence of notability; strong suspicions of conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 14 June 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 two relists, it's clear he is not yet notable. We need to document Pakistan more, but that applies to people there who are already notable DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Latif Hamdani[edit]

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

This page does not meet the notability guildelines WP:N WP:BIO and appears to be self-promotion. The person in question has no claim to fame other than writing for a few blogs and a occasional op-ed pieces in a local Pakistani newspaper. Barastert (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right, the bio does seem to have been written by the subject. I dealt with vandalism and attacks on the subject a year ago, but hadn't thought to consider notability. Blogs and op-ed pieces are not sufficient to show notability. Fences&Windows 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IF the article is written by the subject, it needs to be re-written. But to say that it is not notable is definitely institutional bias more than reality. We need to document Pakistan and its players more and better; not less.
- "Institutional bial"? Can you please explain how this article meets notability guidelines laid out in WP:BIO. As far as I can see, the only thing he is known for is occasionally writing opinion pieces for a Pakistani newspaper that has a circulation of a few thousand and a few blogs that have even less readership. Being quoted in one BBC Online story of course is not sufficient grounds for notability. --Barastert (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The job of an encyclopedia is to provide the context and background on topics that people might, conceivably want to know about. At a time when Pakistan and what's happening in it is regularly headline news everywhere in the world, we need to document the people, the voices, and events related to it properly. Rather than arguing what NOT to document, we should we trying to cover the Pakistani experience better. Does it make any sense that there is no Wikipedia article on Beena Sarwar, that the article on Ardeshir Cowasjee is rudimentary? YLH is an up-and-coming lawyer, activist, and columnist. He now writes a regular column for The Friday Times now. For better and/or for worse, he's one of the voices coming out of Pakistan and increasingly visible within Pakistan and, increasingly, the diaspora and the international press.--iFaqeer (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I sympathize with your sentiments, the job of wikipedia is NOT to "cover the Pakistani experience better". The criteria for having a page such as this in Wikipedia are laid out quite clearly in WP:BIO. Please consult it. You are correct that Hamdani is "up-and-coming". But as of right now, he is not a notable person worth of a wikipedia article. When he becomes notable then we can make a wikipedia page for him. Until then, we should delete this page. --Barastert (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more specific, the basic criteria for notability of a person on wikipedia is (according to WP:BASIC): "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." There is absolutely no secondary source material on Hamdani, so the case should be closed. If you can provide reliable secondary source material on Hamdani then it should be entertained, otherwise not. --Barastert (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this page should be deleted, as after being listed for over 2 weeks, no one has given rationale to keep it according to the notability criteria of WP:BASIC. --Barastert (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 08:01, 14 June 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) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Beth[edit]

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

This fashion model has had relationships with a number of notable men (which confers no notability) but her career seems to me to be insufficiently notable in and of itself. There is nothing in the way of reliable sources that refers to any career-related excellence available upon a brief search. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's creator was blocked today after creating a number of detailed and superficially believable hoax pages; I don't suggest that this is another such, but it's worth bearing in mind. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined a speedy because it does assert notability (after a fashion), but I don't see anything noteworthy here. Shimeru (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should delete Hanna Beth's page as a lot of people had put in effort on it as you see. I suggest please do not delete. Poppymolly

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not apparent notability independent of relationships Vartanza (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darren Almond. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A (2002 film)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the director? With repects to the documentary filmmakers, what the heck were they thinking??? The title makes any serious search for sources all but impossible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so hard to find sources due to it's title, how can you be certain that there arnt any??--Coin945 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all certain... and was remarking upon the huge number of false positives caused by their choice of name. If sources are found, I'd gladly reconsider my redirect. Gladly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The director doesn't have an article. The link for the director goes to an artist. Joe Chill (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had that thought myself... but English artist Darren Almond "works in a variety of media, most notably photography and film"... so directing a minor documentary 8 years ago fits his profile. Further, the film was produced by Public Art Development Trust and distributed by Royal National Theatre... entities with whom photography and film "artist" Darren Almond has a relationship. So I think driecting back to the director makes a certain sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may help: after a lot of digging I dug up this description (from an art magazine called The Blowup) of Almond's work A, which is consistent with information in Almond's biography about his voyages to Antarctica:

. . . .experimental films like Darren Almond’s gorgeous and unsettling “A,” shot along the crystalline coast of Antarctica. The film came about when Mission Antarctica invited Almond on their expedition to clear ecological waste from Antarctica's shores in early 2002. He discovered a “landscape simply made up of air, liquid and gas in different states.” His camera lingers over menacing icebergs, skimming their curves like the backs of rounded knees. After a while, it becomes difficult to distinguish sea from sky.[30]

Further Googling of the search string <"Darren Almond" Antarctica> turns up quite a large number of references to this work, although not many of them are WP:RS. (Here is a brief mention in The Age, for example.[31]) Here is a more substantial review in The Independent but unfortunately so far I have found only this teaser from a pay site.[32] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MQS. That way the history is available if someone can find the sources to write the article but we don't keep a poorly sourced article of dubious notability sitting indefinitely. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director, perhaps with a mention of the film on his page. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:58, 19 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wulf[edit]

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

No independent notability or sources on which to build an article. Member of "Sodom" and Kreator, but of the latter gig the article on the band says (without sources) "the band hired the late Sodom guitarist Michael Wulf for the album's tour. Wulf was in the band for a few days and didn't play on the band's next album". I suggest having this article redirect to "Sodom (band)", and if there's any content here to be saved, merging it into "Sodom (band)". Joe Decker (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Merging to Communications Etre sounds like a plan but that article doesn't exist yet. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2B (magazine)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hooray, I get to be the first to say "2B or not 2B, that is the question". The magazine itself does not appear to be notable, but the publishing company, Communications Etre, might be. It has three print magazines aimed at the gay community (Geez, I'm sick of hearing the oh-so-politically-correct "LGBT" all the time). One wouldn't know it from the article, but the company publishes Etre Magazine and 2B Magazine in English, and RG Magazine in French, and they aren't e-zines, but printed and sold at newsstands [33]. Mandsford 00:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Still Standing (Monica album). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love All Over Me[edit]

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

This article is not notable per WP:NSONGS, not because it didnt chart but because there is not enough detailed information to warrant a seperate page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted single. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album per WP:NSONGS--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 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) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Order[edit]

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

Unsigned band, fails WP:MUSIC, after being up a month the only references are a youtube video and two press-releases. 2 says you, says two 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: News search produces one more link to a news source. While one of the sources may be debatable, there's three articles of the band, all from different sources (one of which normally covers a different state.) . As such, it may meet #1 from the notability guidelines. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the youtube link, even if it isn't reliable (cause the band posted the copy of that video, and Youtube link are known to break suddenly), refers to a 3-minute TV broadcast about the band. It has the same weight as the two other articles. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. This is a marginal case, but judging from the sources available, they technically pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. The YouTube link, plus the other links found, just about add up to sufficient evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non-notable - does not qualify as per WP:MUSIC. --Deenoe 00:36, 11 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stitches Split[edit]

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

Non-notable split EP without even a complete track listing. Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alamgir (pop singer). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Alamgir Vol 2[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation; Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alamgir (pop singer). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Alamgir Vol 1[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation; Google. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Tears (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional recording. Cannibaloki 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I strongly recommend a more detailed deletion rationale from the nominator. "Non-notable promotional recordings" does not apply to all the items in the extensive list, some of which were officially released singles. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove if these singles were officially released?--Cannibaloki 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic (see here) lists "Concrete Jungle" as an officially released single. "Stiilborn," "House of Doom," "Fire It Up," "In This River," "Suicide Messiah," and "Concrete Jungle" are listed as having reached pretty high in the Billboard Rock charts (even though some of the others besides "Concrete Jungle" may not have been *physical* single releases). Therefore, each of those songs has achieved a certain amount of notability that MIGHT merit separate WP articles. If you think those particular songs are not notable enough for their own articles, you might have a good point but your rationale needs to be far more specific for each individual title. This mass AfD is illegitimate because it uses one blanket rationale that is not even close to applicable across the board. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, believe it or not I happen to agree with the original deletion argument for the first item listed at the top, the "No More Tears" EP. I might have voted to delete that particular article if it was in a singular AfD. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think most of these singles are non-notable, but I removed them according your instructions.--Cannibaloki 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible for you to initiate more specific AfD's for those other songs and see what happens. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Them being released officially or not has nothing to do with it really. Some bootleg songs out there have notability amongst them, it just depends on the song and the people who have heard it. I have not done any research on these so I don't really have a good stance to vote yes or no, but if I was you, I'd break this AfD into smaller parts, so each article can get a good amount of attention. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of website linking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A loosely associated collection of article stubs. Most are unreferenced or barely referenced. A few might deserve their own articles, but most would not. Many are Neogolisms that really do not belong on the project. But whether any individual element deserves it's own article or not, this hash of a collection should not be on the project IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hyperlink. This article has few references - most of it is original research or essay-like. I think it should be cut down to the most well-referenced/notable terms, and then merged into the existing article on Hyperlinks, without the neologisms or original research. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hyperlink is about the technology and syntax of a single link, and this seems to divert and overwhelm the purpose of that article. However, I think this article would work better as Uses of website linking, as this is more about the purposes of creation of links. A webring is, technically, a circular directed graph of links, but the purpose is to fully connect together a list of links and let users browse related sites. Many of the subjects can be grouped based upon topological patterns, but description of each should cover the assorted uses. Looking at the first section's phrase "Reciprocal link", there are 6 in Google News at the moment (1 is numerology and not relevant), but they're all being used as industry terms the same way biologists mention "dorsal cavity", and to find something suitable as a reference one has to search for an article discussing dorsal cavities, but we can see that the neologism is in use... and Google Scholar does provide 71 items for "Reciprocal link" SEO so there is material for our editors to examine. There should be a "Wikipedia Standards" header on the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:53, 16 June 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) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Harmer[edit]

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

Delete, quite possibly speedy delete. No evidence of notability at all. Speedy deletion was declined with an edit summary which said "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7", but I can see no such assertion. The article tells us he made films and taught, but does not tell us that he achieved any particular significance in either of these fields. The only fact about him for which any source is given is that he once gave a shadow puppet workshop, and the source for that is an advertisement for the event. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturing at animation at the University of Westminster and teaching at the Tate Galleries, the Barbican, the National Gallery and the Victoria & Albert Museum is at least a credible assertion that there might be notability. No opinion on whether there actually is though. NW (Talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Died last year. Not independently notable. Redirect to Chris_Green_(writer/performer)#Personal_Life, where he is named. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010

(UTC) Strong Delete- No notability, no references, pretty much nothing at all. Zonafan39 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched for coverage in reliable sources to indicate that he met WP:BIO inclusion guidelines, but unfortunately I can find nothing - all the references in Google News seem to be to synonymous unrelated persons. I'm also not sure about merging to the Chris_Green_(writer/performer) article; though that page does mention Harmer as Green's husband, that claim isn't cited and I am turning up nothing but WP mirrors on searches for their names together. I can't verify that the two were a couple, without which the merge doesn't seem justified. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I couldn't find sources to support it, I've now removed the uncited "personal life" section from Green's article. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/moving can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welder certification[edit]

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

This article has no reliable sources to assert it's notability. Wizard191 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable topic. The websites listed under external links could be used as sources. One problem is that the news media is not likely to report on this topic, important as it is, unless there are problems with it. Wolfview (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ELs are just links to welding associations. How are they sources of notability? Wizard191 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a welding association says something is important in the field of welding it probably is. Wolfview (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wolfview's rationale. Zonafan39 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Welder - also need to be more world related than just america, other wise perhaps "American Welding Certification" should be the title...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The retitle sounds like a good idea to me, merging to a section in Welder would also not be bad. Any person who has some understanding of "how things work" will understand how important welding certification is. You wouldn't want your life to depend on a weld unless it was done by someone who knew what he/she was doing. Wolfview (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlocator[edit]

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

Non Notable magazine Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you run the same sources with this page Professional_Van_and_Light_Truck_Magazine similar results are returned. It doesn't seem consistent? CommercialVehicleExpert (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately consistency isn't really a powerful argument here since the discussion is focussed on this article, not other ones out of the 86 billion or however many there now are. You might want to have a look at places like Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and especially Wikipedia:Other stuff exists where this is discussed, er, at length! Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to be found on google news. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:03, 16 June 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 03:13, 13 June 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) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Machine 13[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this compilation album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above. Deenoe 00:38, 11 June 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.