< 13 May	15 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ilocos earthquake[edit]

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

per WP:NOTNEWS. Even the article itself plays down the effects. RapidR (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a bad article, but the event is marginal. There are 800 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0-5.9 (assuming Richter?) in the world each year. Minor damage, no casualties, therefore indeed only a minor news event. GregorB (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another earthquake article created soon after the event. This one happened two days after the 2010 Mindoro earthquake, which appears similarly non-notable, but is not nominated. It was barely acknowledged when it happened [1], and, not surprisingly not even a week or a month later [2]. Unfortunately, there is no organization, as of yet, for a reasonable method of saving earthquake information, and it comes down to an "all or nothing" proposition every time, there being no in-between choice. The usual sequence of events is that the earth shakes somewhere; the United States Geological Survey adds the information to the list; a Wikipedia contributor sees an opportunity to create an article about the event; it gets nominated for deletion and-- as of late-- it gets deleted. As a review of Category:21st-century earthquakes shows, the number of WP:RECENT articles has steadily increased. Four in 2004, 12 in '05, 16 in '06, '21 in '07, 24 in '08, 31 in '09 and-- for the first half of 2010 so far-- forty-six! It would be even more that, but we've had six of the articles called "2010 _____ earthquake" deleted so far, with tremors in the Andaman Islands, Biobío (in March, after the February killer quake in Chile), Oklahoma, Pichilemu, South Texas and most recently Venezuela. Granted, this will still be mentioned on the 2010 earthquakes page, but a page for earthquakes in a particular region would be more of a contribution to knowledge. I'm afraid that most all-or-nothing fights are going to end with "nothing". Mandsford 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the past deletion outcomes have been to delete earthquakes smaller than 6 on the Richter scale, or its equivalent in damage. A smaller earthquake might be notable, if say, a notable monument or building were damaged, but this is not the case here. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, "only pipes may have been affected". This is practically coming down to writing articles about trees falling in the forest without anyone around to notice. WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not an earthquake directory.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twelve Months, Eleven Days. Shimeru (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lie To Me (Gary Barlow song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM : no chart, no cover version, no award. I'm pretty sure that the article will remain a stub forever. Europe22 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yids2010 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC) It was performed live, released as a live b side on the promo for 'Stronger' and is important to mention in relation to the biography of this artist. i Quote: WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Yids2010 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Totally irrelevant : the article is about a song, not an album, and see also WP:INHERITED. --Europe22 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twelve Months, Eleven Days, the parent album. I can't find significant coverage for this song sufficient for it to warrant an independent article; does not meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent. No significant coverage to establish notability. Song articles do not inherit. Rehevkor ✉ 15:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Open Road (Gary Barlow album). Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Ready Now[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM : no chart, no cover version, no award. I'm pretty sure that the article will remain a stub forever. Europe22 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The artist is sufficiently notable. For the purpose of analysis/commentary on/explanation of the albums which no doubt made him notable, the article should stay. Also, albums themselves have their own division of the WP:BAND notability criteria. I quote from WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." --Pump me up 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Irrelevant : 1/ This page is about a song, not an album, and it fails all the criteria listed on WP: NM; 2/Please, see also WP:INHERITED. -- Europe22 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist is one of the most relevent artists of the past 20 years.

this song charted in the netherlands where it was released. citation is correct. You removed it with no relevent reason. I also quote the source mentioned above WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Yids2010 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yids2010 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : No, it's wrong : the page given as reference for the Dutch chart is a mirror page of the Gary Barlow article = not reliable. Hung Medien site (listed as WP:GOODCHARTS) shows the song didn't chart in this country.[3] --Europe22 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Road (Gary Barlow album); lack of significant coverage in reliable sources for this song to support a separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Borzillo[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Being a competent journalist who actually manages to get published doesn't make one notable. Nor does marrying a celebrity. GHits are mostly a) her own Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., pages; b) interviews in non-notable e-fanzines such as revver.com and popdose.com; c) passing mentions in connection with Chris Vrenna's divorce from her; and d) routine book reviews (which are about publications, not about her as a biographical subject). I don't see anything that suggests this person is notable enough for a bio article here. Furthermore, the "article" is just a somewhat wikified copy-paste of her résumé – it even had a résumé-style "references" list in it! (I.e., people to contact as character references, not references in the WP sense of cited sources.) As such, it is either a blatant copyright violation or an obvious conflict-of-interest piece created by the subject herself. Update: It's the latter, apparently. Either Borzillo[-Vrenna] or someone posing as her was a major, repeat contributor to the article, as CBV2007 (talk · contribs), possibly also the anon-IP creator of the article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Um, no it wasn't incomplete. This bot is certainly well-named. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. I grant that the bot's notice may be somehow misleading in implying that the nominator missed a step, but the point is that, at the time it run, some part of the nomination wasn't in place (in this case, undone). Tizio 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a third party error, then. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No notable sources found. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me. It seems a little strange that a person who was working on "cleaning up" and editing the article suddenly decides to nominate it for deletion... is that unusual or is it just me? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On what policy-related basis does the article "seem notable enough to [you]"? That's far too vague and subjective a comment to be useful at AfD. See also WP:AFD#Before nominating an article for deletion; improving and researching an article as best one can should be done prior to turning to AfD, which is a last resort. I don't understand how you are somehow confused about this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 08:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With proper sourcing of some key points this would be a keep, though. GregorB (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Jordan#Infinity of Heaven. Shimeru (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity of Heaven[edit]

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

Reason This article is about a book that could not be writed because the author dead, besides, the information about the book is in the autor article ElmerHomero (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —ElmerHomero (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There is coverage but little beyond "nothing is known about" and "unlikely to ever be written" comments, sadly it's likely to remain footnote in his legacy. Nothing to merge either, as far as I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Robert Jordan#Infinity of Heaven. He planned to write this and talked a bit about it. But that's pretty much it. the Robert Jordan article already has it covered so there's nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: the article is mostly one long citation, the salvageables of this article is the link used in references. That could be moved to Robert Jordan#Infinity of Heaven. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as an appendix to my stmt, per Talk:Infinity_of_Heaven: WP is not WP:FUTURE (a crystal ball), WP:IINFO (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the content is simply not encyclopedic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Stingers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable. Sports teams at British Universities are rarely notable even within their institution. This isn't an exception. American Football is extremely niche interest in the UK. Although the article has references they are all to a now defunct British Universities American Football league and return 404 errors. A search on Google for real references turns up only sites directly connected to the team or its rivals. Those unsure of the following of University sports teams in the UK might like to check out the gallery on the teams website and play spot the fan. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No independent sources. University sports teams in the UK are not generally notable, and this team does not appear to be an exception. Checking through the 2007 AfD (above), I see arguments based on some notion of inherited notability (though I have my doubts as to whether the BCAFL and BUAFL are genuinely notable), and I see arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I even see someone claiming that we had to keep because Wikipedia was "the only reliable record of team history". But I see no indication that the team was notable then, any more than it is now. Pfainuk talk 08:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to make an exception for this subject at this time. Perhaps in the future should more independent sources arise, this would be a better candidate. Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly RC[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) 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable magazine. There is a ton of information out there about the hobby of RC aircraft flying (which has its own article), but virtually nothing about the magazine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . G3—hoax. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandergotti[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this film exists. Even if it does, there is no indication that it is notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is supposedly web content on Film24.com, yet a search of that site turns up nothing by this name, and a Google search for "vandergotti" turns up nothing relevant outside Wikipedia itself. I see no evidence so far that anything in this article is true. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing relevant so fails WP:RS. Also a possible hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even searching for "Brandon Michaels" or "Brandon Michaels film24" returns nothing relevant. I'm seriously considering db-hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tagged for speedy deletion as CSD G3 obvious hoax NOTHING about "Vandergotti" as a film or its creator. It was apparently created 2006 but why isn't there anything on Google? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably because this article answers the question, "What would Degrassi High be like if it were a web series that didn't really exist?" --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there is not enough sourced content for an article at this time. Sandstein 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidential election 2016[edit]

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

Per Mark83: WP:CRYSTAL Purely speculative article. Even the potential candidates for 2016 party primaries is speculative, never mind the general election. My own comment: "Few sources that do not clearly indicate the intentions of the listed individuals to run for US Presidential election in 2016." ialsoagree (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is nothing but speculation about a scheduled future event about which nothing can be said that is verifiable and not original research. Cliff smith ^talk 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination). There can be no significant content here other than pure speculation until the 2012 election winner is known. Note that the current version of United States presidential election, 2012 was not created until November 2008; prior versions were deleted as crystal ballery. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this page isn't that different than the one which was already deleted, CSD G4 may apply. Cliff smith ^talk 03:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wp:CRYSTAL, which is what happened previously. (Also, Source 2 doesn't show anything.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course There is already speculation about possible candidates. [4] , [5] ,[6] [7] , [8] , [9] , w w w. e x a m i n e r.com/x-43910-Liberal-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Floridas-Crist-likely-leaving-GOP-to-run-as-independent (blocked link, for some reason) , [10] in a very quick check from G News, and Ive seen a good deal else also. But, as Ditzy points out, we have a tradition of pretending RSs don't discuss things in advance. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link 1 seemed acceptable, links 2 and 5 both require subscriptions to view (2 appears to be a repeat of 1, 5 doesn't mention 2016 in the abstract at all). Link 3 appears totally unrelated, link 4 addresses the order of primaries and only mentions the 2016 election in passing: "In the 2016 presidential election, the Midwest would go first and the West region last." Link 6 does not work. Link 7 only mentions the 2016 election in passing (and with no substance of importance): "If one were to imagine the winner of the 2016 presidential election, one could easily picture Mike Huckabee." ialsoagree (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. We run the risk here of more misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. The event is going to happen. We know that. And reliable sources are already discussing it. Care needs to be taken so that the content of the article isn't overly speculative. And what's left after such care is taken might not be much. But there is still enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? DGG posted 2 sources (one required a subscription) that suggests Hillary will not run in 2016. The others are either unrelated, don't work, or only mention the election in passing and with relatively useless information. If reliable sources exist, then they should be posted. Appealing to them without giving examples shouldn't be considered an argument. ialsoagree (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The event is going to happen" is not a good argument. So is the Presidential Election in 2024, so let's create that article on the assumption that Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic nomination but loses the general election and therefore is a contender for 2024 on the assumption that the victorious Republican president has two full terms!! Or we could do the sensible thing and wait until after the 2012 election when the political kaleidoscope has begun to settle from that massive shake to a point where solid assumptions can be made, not wild speculation. Mark83 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason that we should treat crystalballing about the U.S. presidential election any differently than crystalballing about the elections of other nations. The image of the crystal ball is a good analogy for this type of speculation-- a seer peering into their glass orb (in this case, one that's surrounded by a plastic frame and, like all computer monitors, hooked up to electronic hardware and the internet), and then making guesses that boil down to one thing-- whoever might run in 2012 might also run in 2016. Add whoever you can think of to the list so far-- Mitt Romney might run, Scott Brown might run, Sarah Palin might run, Hillary Clinton might run, Stephen Brockerman might run, etc. etc. By golly, I'm thinking of running. Mandsford 22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is no deadline. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources to show that speculation is rampant in the media and secondary sources already for 2012. Perhaps, like WP:HAMMER, someone needs to write an essay explaning how WP:CRYSTAL applies to political races. You kids need some perspective. 2 years ahead is probably enough for most United States elections, but historically, presidential elections have been discussed in reputable sources far in advance - as much as 7 years into the future. Lloyd Stark was leading for president in 1933 for the election of 1940. Hillary Clinton's name was mentioned on TV in 1999 for president in 2004 or 2008. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of all the "kids" reading the above, "you kids" should be aware that it's a common argumentative technique to imply that the persons who disagree with you as inexperienced, naive, immature, ignorant, etc. and to imply that the persons who agree with you are learned, wise, mature, etc. I think that, more often than not, it backfires. Mandsford 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be, once again, an appeal to "plenty of reliable sources" without any example. I still contend that an appeal to sources without presenting them is not an argument and shouldn't be considered. Part of the reason this nomination was made is because there aren't reliable sources. I think the fact that reliable sources aren't being presented (despite the claim they exist) is because they are in fact few and far between or non-existent. ialsoagree (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub compendium of mainstream media gossip. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The sources aren't the best and many of the "possible candidates" are unsourced. We may not have to wait until 2012 as some have suggested, but we need more coverage before this article becomes practical. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Manville, actress, dancer, model[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources of notability for this actress. Seems to fall under "NOT YET". Also, if nothing else, the title is certainly wrong. — Timneu22 · talk 22:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete couldn't find enough coverage about "Magdalena Manville" (without the "actress, singer, model"), while IMDb is reliable, that is not enough and all I could find were listings. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Her best shot at notability would have been the movies like Monster and Upside of Anger, except that her parts in those films were clearly tiny - listed 10th or 12th in the credits playing characters like "Bar lap girl". Maybe she will be WP:notable someday, but she is not yet. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ENT.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Her latest role of "Paparazzi #1" does not indicate that she has risen beyond small parts. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Taught Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability remains unestablished. Press was limited to a few local news stories in Northern Virginia and Hanford, California (even the Washington Post article was in their metro section for that area, not in their national news). In addition, this article is a BLP trap, as the three persons mentioned in the article have in the past been speculated to be either murderers or mentally disabled, without evidence. I was willing to give the subject time to establish itself, but it's very apparent that its 15 minutes of fame have been up for quite a while now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxeptomaniac (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 May 2010

note this is actually the third deletion discussion for this , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Joe Blythe. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator, WP:NOTNEWS applies here. This is an event of no encyclopedic significance. Pcap ping 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KILL IT WITH FIRE. In addition to being a rat's nest of probable BLP vios, with even more in the article history, it would appear to fail WP:EVENT. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is pretty clear. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Bar[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Bar in Brisbane, Australia. Doesn't seem notable to me despite the sources. Listed here mainly because an anon IP keeps tagging the page for speedy deletion; best to have this resolved through discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong Keep. It seems to have enough coverage in VG sources to stay. Definitely not speedy/prod. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added reliable, independent sources for the lead intro paragraph. The notability is established by sources as this being the first bar of its kind in Australia.— Hellknowz ▎talk 09:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly a notable establishment with plenty of reliable sources to back it up. It seems the IP that kept tagging with speedy is doing so in bad faith, and they don't seem to have any established editing history, thus probably not knowing the standards by which an article can stay. Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the IP user's part. Kudos to NawlinWiki for being civil and bringing it to AfD though. --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references which are independent reliable sources. While the article has a number of references, they're generally either directory-type listings or material produced by the bar or its owners (for instance http://www.australiangamer.com/news/2915_yug_and_some_other_guys_are_opening_a_bar_in_brisbane.html is cited twice, but is actually a blog post by one of the bar's founders). Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- How is there a lack of independent reliable sources? Coverage by Game Informer, GamePlanet, Destructoid, Kotaku and Gizmodo easily establish notablity, and are not unreliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This article seems to have come about as a result of this post on the bar's Facebook page made by the bar owners. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As said on the talk page, how the article started doesn't really affect the actual notability of the subject. I would concede that the post may represent a conflict of interest, but there were comments on a neutral tone. Looking at the timestamps, I don't think the post really matters any more. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a unique establishment, and the first of its kind in Australia. There's been coverage in both VG and local sources. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following is a comment by the anon IP, made on the talk page. I'm copy-pasting it here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the deletion notice, let's get this page out of here. If The Manabar is noteworthy, every pub in Australia is noteworthy. It doesn't help that it's clearly the people who run the site and their close friends editing and encouraging others to edit the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.122.169 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes, I am a fan of the bar and yes, I did make the page after seeing their facebook post about it. But I don't think this changes its notability and heaps of other people have edited since then. There are now plenty of independent citations and evidence of mana bar being unique in its position as a gaming bar. Master gopher (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - The circumstances of its creation are irrelevant if it is backed up with reliable, significant coverage, which it has. --Teancum (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. — Hellknowz ▎talk 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks like notability is easily established here with reliable sources. –MuZemike 13:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable and covered by multiple gaming news sources. Will they throw me out because I usually play warriors rather than casters? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it now stands is good regardless of where it came from. (Thanks to H3llkn0wz in particular.) The Facebook request that got it started is problem-free. It doesn't ask people to spam, lie or promote, just to create an article, which isn't considered a subversive act by default quite yet.
It doesn't matter that fans are editing the article unless they do something untoward, and if they do, problems within an article aren't a reason to delete if the problems can be edited back out again. The way I see it, the people who edit a given article can be divided into those who like its subject, those who dislike its subject, and those who don't really care one way or the other and have little reason to be there unless the article is in itself important in documenting the cosmos. Deeming the first group suspicious and leaving matters to the other two seems like it would create more problems than it solves. Sure, fans might spam or distort. But in the absence of a really effective department of pre-crime, the only way we have of telling whether a given person will is to see him doing so. Keeping an eye on them should be a good idea, but pre-emptive action against hypothetical plans is not.
AfDs are always unpleasant, so we should close this one as soon as it's been made clear that deletion isn't going to happen. --Kiz o r 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if it's not your cup of tea (and it's not mine), this is a notable establishment as shown by the rather extensive coverage of it in the Australian gaming press. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Damon.cluck/Bibliography of Arkansas National Guard History per consensus and author request. Moving to the Wikipedia space (under WP:MILHIST or WP:ARKANSAS) may also be an option; I leave that to Damon.cluck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Arkansas National Guard History[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory to various sources, nor is it a collection of links and book titles. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas National Guard and Militia History Roundtable is a group of currently serving and retired members of the Arkansas National Guard, chartered by the State Military Department to assist the State Command Historian with efforts to document unit histories; assisting in digitizing existing unit histories and making them available on-line and support publication of Arkansas National Guard and Militia History related articles and books. We have been working to improve various Wikipedia Articles on the Arkansas Army National Guard and it's various units. As a part of this mission, many of our members have asked for Bibliography of Arkansas National Guard history materials. The thought process was to use this Wikipedia article to assist in compiling a list of source material. Most of the material being added has been or will be cited to some extent in the following existing Wikipedia Articles:

Arkansas Army National Guard

Additionally, the intent is many cases is to provide a summary of the relevant information, comment on the relative credibility of the sources, and in many cases, where the item may be out of print or of limited availability, provide information on how to physically find the source.

We believe this would be an invaluable resourse for those of us working on Arkansas Military History topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damon.cluck (talk • contribs)

Userfy to the userspace of User:Damon.cluck or anyone else who is willing to take this in. If editors are actually planning to use this list as a guide to find sources for content they are creating, then I can accept storing it on Wikipedia in userspace. However, it should not be an independent article in the main space, per the nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: not an encyclopedic article. Storing resources for article improvement is why userspace exists. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above, or move to a project talk page, since it would be a group user page of some sort. A bibliography can be a wonderful addition to an article, but as pointed out it is not its own article. Although it may seem like six vs. half a dozen, I don't want to encourage the creation of articles called "Bibliography of ________" Mandsford 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or alternately move it to the right place, the AR ANG page itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete, it is mostly a list of links. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the consences is Userfy, I will be out of pocket when the time is up on this proposed deletion, so will some one move it to my userspace or am I responsible for that. If I am responsible for it, when can I make the move?Damon.cluck (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaëtan Bouillet[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. He took part in a competition and injured his knee: that's his claim to significance. The only reason I am using AfD rather than speedy deletion under CSD A7 is that the statement that he took part in a "World Championship" looks like a claim of significance. However, anyone can set up a competition and call it a "World Championship", and this "World Championship" has no recognition from the sport's governing body (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/a-champion-spectacle-free-running-in-the-uk-1772819.html). The article gives no sources at all. A Google search produced Facebook, Wikipedia, various blogs and similar sites, Youtube and other sites showing video clips, but nothing that could be regarded as substantial coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Participation at the parkour WC might perhaps be sufficient if that WC was an event with qualification criteria, such as WCs in major sports. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article hasn't been written about the 2009 world parkour championship, so I can't see writing about an individual competitor. As Watson points out, it's questionable whether there is a recognized world championship. Mandsford 23:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Reconsider ! 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WiZiQ[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't think top 1k in India alexa rating cuts it. See wp:n ErikHaugen (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Consider this reference: Deal Radar 2008: WiZiQ. The whole blog post is about 800 words and is entirely devoted to WiZiQ (this speaks to significant coverage ). In terms of reliable source : the blogger, Sramana Mitra, has been featured on Forbes.com and is also a columnist. Certainly people wouldn't argue that Forbes isn't a reliable source. I have no professional affiliation with WiZiQ however I have used the site for online classes. (Primary author) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's definitely a case where a blog does show notability, but that isn't multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I've added two additional sources to the article. One from Mashable, and another from a source called Silicon India. This isn't rocket science however if you are willing to go with the reasoning: if there is an article for site X, and site Y is in the same market as site X, but there is no article for site Y then we can compare the rationale for site X with the rationale for site Y. Let's say site X is Edufire and site Y is WiZiQ. If people are saying Delete then do you think Edufire ought to be deleted? Both WiZiQ and Edufire have articles in Mashable. Edufire has an article in a magazine called Venture Beat, and an article in TechCrunch. Both are in the TechCrunch database. WiZiQ has an article in Sramana Mitra's blog who is a columnist for Forbes. WiZiQ has a much higher Alexa traffic rank than Edufire (about 7 times more, 7,172 [11] versus 52,366 [12]). Seems to me we ought to just let people know about both sites. (Primary author) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Jjjjjjjjjjj, I went ahead and switched your bold "keep" to "comment", which is how most Wikipedia editors preface their remarks once they have already opined "keep" or "delete" once. This is so that the closing admin doesn't misread the discussion and see two votes from one editor. Them From Space 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment ThemFromSpace, thanks for helping me to understand how wikietiquette works in this deletion page. My article may be headed for the digital oval filing cabinet, but perhaps I still had a learning experience. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I struck out some of the comments I made because I think I had gone a little bit off topic. I'll provide a comment here below with the three sources that I believe warrant keeping the article. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unconvinced of the subject's notability. As always, I am happy to reconsider if additional evidence is presented. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete above) The new references (barely) provide sufficient evidence of notability. The references needs to be better incorporated into the article (there should not be a "Notability" section!) but they're there and that's what we need. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence of notability according to WP:N or WP:WEB. Them From Space 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three articles which speak to the notability of the website:

. Sramana Mitra's blog -- She is a columnist for Forbes.
. Mashable article -- Mashable, a high traffic Internet news blog.
. SiliconIndia article -- SilcionIndia is described by LinkedIn as a prominent and reliable website.

All of these articles are meeting significant coverage.

And what I wrote here is speaking to reliable sources.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And WiZiQ is also on LinkedIn [13] Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. There does not seem to be (at this point of time) enough significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Also, about this, "top 1000" is not a significant claim to notability. Aditya Ex Machina 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That isn't what WP:RS says about blogs:

Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer.

The professional standing of Sramana Mitra is established in this case.

It seems to me very unfair to WiZiQ to delete the article. If there is going to be fair competition between sites like Edufire, Myngle and WiZiQ people need to know about all sites so that they can all improve and can work off each other.

I think if Wikipedia decides to delete WiZiQ the only fair thing then is to delete Myngle and Edufire.

I've used both Edufire and WiZiQ (I know people who have used Myngle, but I haven't used it myself). I'd confess that I found WiZiQ to be somewhat better run in my limited experience using the sites.

I would not advocate deleting any of the three sites, but keeping all of them, so they can compete fairly with one another.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - it would be better to discuss the notability of Myngle/etc on their talk pages, probably. Also, Wikipedia does not try to be a place to provide equal time for competing products. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have specified. There are very few blogs that are written by professional, well-known authors. These blogs in question might be an RS, though I'm not familiar with Mitra's reputation and a Google search really does not help. If we analyze the sources: Alexa's ranking does not justify notability (top 1000 in India is not significant enough on its own). Crunchbase is definitely not an RS (its an anyone-can-edit sort of thing). The 3 blogs you mentioned might be notable, and could satisfy the "multiple non-trivial" requirement of WP:WEB. However verifiability is again a problem. To take care of verifiability problems the article will have to be stubbed (brutally). I still think it should be deleted until there's more non-trivial coverage, but if this article is kept then I'll take care of the pseudo-promotional and unsourced material. Oh, and fair competition is not our concern, really. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'll look at the other articles you mentioned and, if needed, open up an AfD. Aditya Ex Machina 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that crunchbase takes user generated content. I did not know at all that was how it worked. Despite the fact that it has to go through moderators [14] there may be some mistakes as they say in their FAQ [15]. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the moderators are there to filter out abuse and not check the validity of information submitted. A third opinion would be good though. Aditya Ex Machina 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this article further, it seems that most of the article has been written from primary sources, so verifiability is a problem too. Aditya Ex Machina 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm not sure what you mean by verifiability. Are you referring to a Wikipedia guideline? Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:V. Aditya Ex Machina 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V the article needs to cite what will likely be challenged:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

The question is then what in the article is likely to be challenged. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The features section, and the "The WiZiQ virtual classroom... " paragraph should be sourced. This is not the place to discuss this though. Here we're just establishing notability, and whether enough sources exist to write an article. The details are sorted out on the talk page. Anyway, we'll wait for more opinions. Aditya Ex Machina 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough reliable sources to just about meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Lee Saxophone Quartet[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting any of the WP:BAND notability criteria. No sources other than the band's official page. The two albums were self-published by the bandleader, who is himself not notable. GregorB (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It sure looks like just another bit of (self-)promotion of a relatively young band. A few local music web sites - whose significance I can not attest to - covered them non-trivially, and there are numerous trivial references, but otherwise nothing substantial. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short-short story[edit]

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

Synthesis of author's masters thesis. Article appears to promote the author's master thesis as being an expert in the field. WP:COI and WP:OR issues. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flash fiction. Most of the material is about short stories, and the remainder is unsourced OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Short-short story should not be deleted. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, the school where the author of the article took his master's degree is a center of excellence in Brazil. It is the third best university in Brazil, and the 241st best university in the world. The author's adviser in his master's thesis was the American professor Thomas LaBorie Burns, PhD. Overall, the source is very reliable. In spite of the fact the author himself is cited a few times, many other critics and writers are cited as well. His name should have not been deleted from the articles Flash fiction and short story, either! He contributed with many lines to these articles, too. Wikipedia has deleted his name but not what he has written! That is not fair! He should be rewarded for his work. Furthermore, what he has written was based on his master's thesis. Well, this is food for thought. Please, ponder those words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the credentials of your university. You could have attended the number 1 university in the world and the problem would still be there. The problem is that you have essentially published your thesis into a Wikipedia article, which is articles are not supposed to be. I and another editor removed your name from other articles because they were self-promotional where you tried to publish your own research into the articles which is against Wikipedia's original research policy. Contributing to articles in your research area is fine and we encourage such editing, but you should not use your own thesis as a reference. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Clarityfiend. Wikipedia does not publish original research but we can keep the title as a search result. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being the self-promotional summary of an unremarkable student's thesis "which was very recently posted on the internet - March 2010"; he's welcome to edit the short story article to cover any of the history that's currently missing, but his own analysis and neologism doesn't merit its own Wikipedia article. (I don't think it's worth redirecting his neologism.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Let's not give him too much credit for the term.[16][17][18]. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear! THE TERM IS NOT MINE!!!!! I'm not so important. I've not coined any term or neologism!!! Please, read on the subject before commenting it. Robert Shapard does call the short-short story a genre in the 2007 collection named "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond," as well as in the "Flash Fiction Forward: 80 Very Short Stories" from 2006. In 1986 it was not called a genre and in the Afterwords of "Sudden Fiction: American Short-Short Stories" (which I read a dozen of times, the Afterwords) writers tried to define what this emerging type of fiction was. I understand and I agree 100% that nobody creates genres or sub-genres. I challenge Mr. Shapard to read my thesis and understand my analyses and thoughts more fully. I am very well grounded theoretically. There is a link to it in the article new sudden fiction as well as in the article short-short story from Wikipedia. Anyway, if you type "The Short-Short Story: a New Literary Genre" at Google, you will find two links to it: one is from an office on higher research projects from the Education Department from the Brazilian government and the other is a Brazilian literary site where amateur writers and students post their creative and academic works. I do not believe the introduction of Mr. Shapard and James Thomas's book was misleading, but for the time I had and the material I had on my hands, I saw the "new sudden fiction" and the "flash fiction" as sub-genres of the short-short story since Shapard and James Thomas "decided to search for a distinction within the GENRE (enphasis added)...[and] split the child (sudden fiction) into two new children... "new" sudden fiction [and] flash..." Those were Mr. Shapard's words on page 15 of the "editor's note" of "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond". My view might not be adequate. I'm thousand of miles away from the U.S.A. and things happen very fast. I cannot follow such speed. Furthermore, I buy books on the amazon.com and they take 40 days to get to Brazil and as I've already said my time was limited to research and write my thesis. I apologize for the poor contribution. I'm sure an American will do better. I bet. I've seen the "Sudden Fiction Latino" at the amazon.com. Nevertheless, at the moment I'm preparing a research project for my Ph.D. and the field of study is very different. I'm researching in the field of Jewish Studies, homosexuality and Judaism. I've changed completely. Then, EDITORS FROM WIKIPEDIA, feel free to delete everything I've written. I'm very sorry for attempting to help. I'm not good enough, I'm not an American! And don't worry, I'll stick to the Brazilian sites. Moreover, my Ph.D. dissertation will be written in Portuguese; then there is no need for concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely about the appropriateness of the sources - the same article from an American student writing about his own thesis would get exactly the same response.

The major problem with the article is that every time it discusses the "short-short story" as an actual, named genre, you are (so far as I can see) only quoting yourself as a source. If you think you can cut the article down to explain the genre of the "short-short story" using existing reliable sources and without ever referencing your own thesis, then the article can be kept. If it relies on your thesis to make its point, though, then it fails WP:NEO. --McGeddon (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my thesis is reliable. Read what Wikipedia says:

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." The members of my thesis defense committee were Thomas LaBorie Burns, an American Postdoctorate from Colorado State University, professor from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, José dos Santos, PhD from Purdue University, ex-professor from this institution and Magda Tolentino, PhD from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, currently teaching at Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei. I'll check what Wikipedia says about original research, in spite of the fact I guess I've already read it. I feel there is a little prejudice due to the fact the article comes from an MA from a Brazilian university, then it's not a realiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could maybe use your thesis to support claims in another article, but I don't think notability policy wouldn support an entire article about a fiction genre which (so far as I can see from the sources) a few people have casually mentioned the name of or used when they need a title for their book or writing competition, and which you have coined as a genre umbrella in your thesis "The Short-Short Story: a New Literary Genre".

Again, I can assure you there is no prejudice here over the nationality of the university. An article based primarily on a single student's thesis, written by that student in a clear conflict of interest, would get the same response. --McGeddon (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A great deal of evidence that this is a recognized genre. 697 Google scholar hits , see above, of which most are highly relevant: first , some books:

1. ".. When an anthology such as Peregrine Smith's Sudden Fiction (1986) celebrates itself as the

declaration of an "ex plosive new literary form" - the short-short story - " from The Culture and Commerce of the American Short Story: America's Workshop by A Levy - 1993

2. Sudden fiction: American short-short stories R Shapard, J Thomas - 1987 - books.google.com

3, "Ten years ago, Jerome Stern, director of the writing program at Florida State University, initiated the World's Best Short Short Story Contest." from Micro fiction: an anthology of really short stories JH Stern - 1996

4. "Atwood explodes the boundaries of the (short) short story genre." RM Nischik - The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood

and some journals

1. "Hoshi took advantage only of that corner of the prefabricated house which shaped his own form of "short-short" story." Japanese SF, Its Originality and Orientation (1969) by K Yamano, K Behrens, D Suvin, T Tatsumi in Science Fiction Studies, 1994 -

2.", a Donald Barthelme short-short story as read by Joanna Gavins," TE Jackson - Poetics Today, 2005 - Duke Univ Press

3."Perhaps the best reason for our few weeks with the short short story in the twelfth grade is that I enjoyed the exercise " HA Domincovich - English Journal, 1941 -

I could go on, but, as I said , there are hundreds of them. What the article needs is some rewriting to change the tone to one more suitable to WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've edited the article. Take a look at it now. I've cut down the number of times I cite myself from seven or eight to two. Let's make a deal then. I've edited it, now please, keep it with the two citations and the external link. Believe me. I'm a reliable source. Read it again. The two citations are very adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flash fiction. The term "short short story" is not a neologism, given that various collections of works labeled as such have been published. For example, Isaac Asimov et al. edited 100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories back in 1978. However, this article reads like an academic essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It would need a major rewrite to adjust its content and style to Wikipedia standards. Therefore, I recommend a redirect for now. If someone later on wants to write an article about the short short story as a genre as distinct from flash fiction, they can do so when they are ready to write it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash fiction in one form of it, a contemporary form, the general term is older--my refs above go back to 1941, and I havent really searched systematically for the oldest. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what DGG has said. Thanks for the cooperation, DGG. Yes, the term short-short story is older than 1978 and the genre itself might have its origins as early as the nineteenth century according to Gitte Mose, a Danish scholar and her paper "Danish Short-Shorts in the 1990s and the Jena-Romantic Fragments", published in the collection of papers "The Art of Brevity: Excursions in Short Fiction Theory and Analysis," by the University of South Carolina Press, 2004. "Flash fiction" is a sub-category or sub-genre of the short-short story, the greater "genus."

By the way, thanks for the reply, McGeddon. Have you seen the few alterations in the article? What do you think? Now the article is not entirely based on my thesis. I'm cited only twice and in the end of the article. Nevertheless, I cite other six or seven sources throughout the text. You, McGeddon, have said we could maybe use my thesis to support claims in another article, haven't you? Which article, for instance? The New Sudden Fiction? Do want me to work on it? But I guess I don't have much more to say on it than what I've said. I can surely cut down the self-citations to one, perhaps, and do other few alterations. What do you think? Did you mean another article? The Flash fiction? You know I've already done some editing in it but I could do more alterations. I do not agree 100% with its writer's view. But I can tell he/she has knowledge on the topic. I could do some more editing in the Flash fiction and bring a citation of my thesis in to support one of my arguments or claims. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the term "short short story" was coined in 1978, just that it can be shown not to be a neologism because it existed in 1978 (without trying to figure out when it originated before then). I would note that this article doesn't even mention the concept of the "short short story" until the third paragraph, which is an important part of my concern that this article would need a major rewrite to conform to Wikipedia standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's ironic that one of our longest long debates has been over a "short-short story". Mandsford 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term has been in use for decades. At the very least it deserves a section in the short story article. OTOH, it badly needs the removal of the original research by the SPA with the COI. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oral fluid[edit]

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

Although this article states that saliva is only one component of oral fluid, it fails to describe the differences between oral fluid and saliva, making it an almost useless article at this time. It also is entirely unreferenced. If this article is not deleted, I feel it should be redirected to or merged with Saliva. Immunize (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unsourced and remarkably uninformative. I'm willing to change my mind if someone wants to put something into this warm pitcher of article. Mandsford 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Sopranos characters. Sandstein 06:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Leotardo[edit]

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

At the risk of getting wacked, the number of articles devoted to the show The Sopranos has become an issue. I nominate unsourced “Phil Leotardo” [19], a character on the show, for deletion or merger into one of the many, many other articles with repetitive information about the show. He is a representative of a longer list of secondary characters from the show (not the actors) receiving separate article treatment that includes: Carlo Gervasi [20] Little Paulie Germani [21] Benny Fazio [22] Butch DeConcini [23] Rosalie Aprile [24] Little Carmine [25] Vito Spatafore [26] Patsy Parisi [27] Johnny Sack [28] Charmaine Bucco [29] Eugene Pontecorvo [30] Ralph Cifaretto [31] Bobby Baccalieri [32] Artie Bucco [33] Furio Giunta [34]

The Sopranos article itself is long and detailed. [35] Separate articles are devoted to single episodes of the show. [36] More articles connected to the series include “list of The Sopranos episodes” [37], a synopsis of every episode over 7 years; “Sopranos timeline” [38]; and “Soprano crime family.” [39] There is one “List of Sopranos characters”[40] and a separate article for “List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family”[41]. There is a separate “List of Characters from the Sopranos – friends and family”[42] and another separate article for “List of characters from The Sopranos in the Lupertazzi crime family”[43]. The credited 25 primary actors each have separate articles in addition to each’s character receiving a separate article. Each supporting character within the show has a separate article. Many of these articles mirror what is available at HBO.com. WP:Not Other aspects of the show receiving separate article treatment include “FBI on The Sopranos” [44] and “Soprano Family Tree”[45].

Wikipedia is beginning to look more like the book, The Sopranos Encyclopedia. [46] Eudemis (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what's your plan? Kill them all and let God sort them out? Perhaps merging to lists is appropriate for a number of the characters, but why put up a vague and frustrated-sounding post in AfD? Wouldn't merge tags be more appropriate? - BalthCat (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is possible but see WP:Delete"Merging Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." These bios aren't short articles even if unsourced. Also regarding bundling the articles WP:AfD "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not." Eudemis (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BalthCat's hit the bullseye. Merge all to List of The Sopranos characters in accordance with the usual procedure, leaving a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per S Marshall. As with most of the "I watch a lot of TV" articles that were added to Wikipedia in the mid-2000s, these can now be placed somewhere else. It conceals its existence remarkably well, but there is a The Sopranos wiki, which, based on the fact that it has only 52 articles and the fact that it wasn't even linked in the Sopranos article, suggests that it could use a lot of help. Mandsford 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per S Marshall, but upload the full articles to that elusive Sopranos wiki which could really use them. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to list per S Marshall because there are insufficient sources to support stand-alone articles at this time. In the long run there is nothing to stop people from expanding each section in a list until it is time to spin a new article out. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge all of the individual character articles to List of The Sopranos characters. As Alzarian notes, transwikiing of the full articles ot the wiki would be a friendly thing to do for the series fans. The time line, crime family, individual character lists (other than the real one), family tree, FBI response, etc need to be dealt with separately, with most I suspect needing merging or deleting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik J Rosales[edit]

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

Non-notable, amateur MMA student. Like Jose Martinez, it makes a weak assertion with weak sources, so I didn't ask for speedy. » scoops “5x5„ 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT, non notable amateur athlete.—Sandahl (♀) 19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo Albertazzi[edit]

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

A player that not yet made his professional debut, and he may made his debut in 2010-11 season is just a guess. Matthew_hk t c 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having never played professionally, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and he also fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage. Claiming that he will make his debut is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate this article, if and when he makes his professional debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously fails WP:ATHLETE, even though I must admit he's way more notable than several players that do meet the criteria (but this is not the matter at issue, so...). — Luxic (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have red WP:ATHLETE and I remind Albertazzi has played in Campionato Nazionale Primavera a junior league of Italian Football system as professionist.User:Lucifero4
- A youth league is by definition not fully professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Albertazzi played in the youth team and receive money , in the Campionato Primavera many players are paid. User:Lucifero4

That's the essential difference between "fully professional" and "not fully professional". Mandsford 23:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons stated above. The guy has never played a senior competitive game throughout his career, therefore he is not notable. What he is expected to do next season is just irrelevant. --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose "bjj" Martinez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jose "bjj" Martinez

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

Non-notable, non-professional, minor MMA student. Quite possibly a vanity page, but it makes a weak assertion (won one local weight class competition) with a weak reference, so I didn't ask for speedy. No independent sourcing. » scoops “5x5„ 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just about to tag for speedy when you added this. :) Non-notable 14-year-old. ^Avicenna_sis @ 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You get a white belt for showing up, don't you? - BalthCat (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT, non notable amateur athlete.—Sandahl (♀) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is invalid[edit]

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

Seemingly useless diambiguation page; unlikely search term for any of the pages suggested in the context of logic, and the internet meme page makes no reference to it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the direct page Over 9000, referring to another internet meme and redirecting to internet meme, was deleted for the same reason as I have listed this page for deletion. The log can be found here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Your argument is invalid. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this IS an internet meme, it asserts no notability. Best case scenario we have a dicdef. I'm don't even think that it merits a redirect to internet meme or List of... - BalthCat (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a comment for now, I deleted (and restored) this earlier yesterday and ended up restoring because I felt there was enough of a consensus at the last MfD (to change it from a redirect to a disambg page) to keep it up barring another AfD. My personal feeling would probably lean towards delete but going to think it out a bit more. James (T C) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 23#Your argument is invalid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Wikipedia's AfD forum, "Your argument is invalid" (or it's cousin "That isn't relevant") is a thinly disguised way of saying "Shut up", usually made by people who recognize incivility in everyone except for themselves, so perhaps this phrase should be redirected there. Mandsford 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that; Your argument is invalid seems an unlikely search term already, and if it is ever used, I would think readers would be confused if it just redirected to "shut up", especially without an explanation on the page of why it redirects there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say stupid things Giftiger. "Your argument is invalid" was viewed 64/105/448 times in February/March/April (it's more popular than you!). It isn't an unlikely search term at all. ÷seresin 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD for how to hold a civilised AfD discussion without resorting to telling people to shut up and making unsubstantiated arguments. Not only is that a low average number of hits for the past three months, but it also doesn't show how users found the page (it seems very unlikely they typed that in as a search term), or what they were looking for when visiting the page. As I said above, the Internet meme page doesn't reference this meme, and it is an unlikely search term for any of the logic pages listed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zero mainspace pages link to this article, and likely zero pages at all link to it before the RfD (which equates to the pageviews of February and most of March above). Ergo, it is likely that almost all pageviews derive from direct searches, and you yourself said that phrasing is unlikely to indicate that a logic-related page is desired. So, again, please do a little fact-checking before you make such claims. ÷seresin 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is deleted, the searches will instead land on a search results page, which will serve the necessary purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, the user is interested in knowing the phrase is an internet meme. And, as almost universally agreed, "your argument is invalid" is unlikely to be a search term for a logic-related article. So what purpose, exactly, would be served? ÷seresin 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, as also almost universally agreed, there is no indication that the phrase is an internet meme on the article Internet meme. And, again, please add the information there before trying to assist people who are looking for it. There's no use in rendering navigational aid to a non-existent destination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Deleting Your argument is invalid actively obfuscates information. It is clearly a searched-for term, and having a redlink just because someone has it in his head that a target must mention a redirect for the redirect to be valid is absurd. The RfD got it wrong, but this dab is a better solution anyway. It explains that it's a meme, and if someone wasn't looking for the meme (unlikely, but someone had that notion at the RfD) then we have links to likely logic-related targets, and everybody is happy. Navigational pages like this exist to serve the readers—so long as they have nothing harmful, these pages should be kept if they have any chance of being useful. And it is enormously clear that it is so in this case. ÷seresin 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So were you planning on quoting policy, or just making borderline personal attacks and trying to shout us down? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a personal attack, so enough of that misdirection. No, I'm not going to quote policy, because there isn't a policy that says "Keep navigational aids when they're useful and deleting them is nothing but detriment". We have WP:IAR and WP:UCS for that. Tell me how this page harms the encyclopedia, and how deleting it makes it better. ÷seresin 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The invalid disambiguation page harms the encyclopedia by pretending to give navigational aid to readers searching for an article that might have been titled "Your argument is invalid", but instead only links to articles that make no mention whatsoever of "your argument is invalid". Once the AFD is complete, a cleaned-up version of the page would look like:
Your argument is invalid may refer to:

If there's any encyclopedic content possible on the topic of "your argument is invalid", it should certainly be added to the encyclopedia. Once that happens, Your argument is invalid can become a redirect the article with that information (and that information could be subject to the usual tests of reliability, notability, etc.). But until then, there's no ambiguity among the 0 encyclopedia topics for "your argument is invalid". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages do not exist to link to many pages with the same titles—they exist to disambiguate, thought this often entails many pages with the same titles. Some users may type "your argument is invalid" hoping to find information that it is an internet meme, others may be looking for articles about logic. This page adequately disambiguates the meanings for the user. ÷seresin 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the articles offer any coverage of the topic "Your argument is invalid", obviously no meanings are disambiguated, and certainly not adequately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an invalid disambiguation page. If there is in fact verifiable sources for claims about the phrase and sufficient notability, an article can be created. Barring any actual encyclopedic content that is ambiguous with the phrase, there is no need for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless search term and invalid DAB page. None of the linked-to pages actually refer to this phrase. And no one is going to look up under a random put-down sentence for information; they will look under Logical fallacies. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitu vs Karate[edit]

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

Future film of no obvious notability. No independent sources provided, unable to find any independent reliable sources. (I removed a hoax tag added by another editor when a prod was disputed. No indication on talk why this might be a hoax and primary sources seem to check out.) SummerPhD (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Incidentally, the spelling "Ju-Jitu" is as found in the primary sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to satisfy notability; this seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL too Chzz ► 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Anthony.bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanje Village Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 hits in gnews [47]. and limited mention in gbooks [48] including mentions in 4 travel guides rather than scholarly material. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7, organization with no indication of notability. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

الاحتياجات الاساسية[edit]

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

Even after translating this article, it is clear that this is a pure essay and OR. No encyclopedic topic here. See Wikipedia talk:CSD if you'd like to find a CSD reason for essay-like topics. — Timneu22 · talk 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translated article text is: Basic needs - Avcsad

Approach to basic needs and one of the main ways to measure absolute poverty. It seeks to determine the resources absolute minimum necessary for long-term material well-being, usually in terms of consumer goods. Defines the poverty line, then the amount of income required to meet those needs. Traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is the food (including water), shelter and clothing. , [1] and confirms many of the lists of modern minimal consumption of 'basic needs' is not only food, water, shelter, but also health facilities and education, and health care. The focus of relevant approaches, taking the work of Amartya Sen, the 'potential' rather than consumption. In this context, is to imagine a pattern of basic needs to focus on measuring what is believed to be at the eradication of poverty. Development programs after meeting the basic needs approach that does not invest in economically productive activities that will help the community to weigh in the future, instead it focuses on allowing the community to consume just enough to rise above the poverty line and meet their basic needs. These programs focus on the subsistence of the equity. In spite of this, in terms of "measurement", the basic needs approach or the absolute important. The World Summit in 1995 on social development in Copenhagen as one of the data key that all the countries of the world should be put in place measures for the absolute and relative poverty, and should guide national policies, "the elimination of absolute poverty on the target set by each country in the national context."

The basic needs approach in some countries Canada The proportion of Canadians living in poverty in general over the past three decades. It uses Professor Chris Sarlo, an economist at the University of Nipissing in North Bay, Canada and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, Statistics Canada databases of social - economic situation, particularly household expenditure survey to determine the cost of household necessities list. The list includes food, shelter, clothing, health care and personal care, and infrastructure, communications, transportation, laundry, home insurance, and varied; it is supposed to provide free education to all residents of Canada. This is calculated for the various communities across Canada and the average family size. With this information, determines the proportion of Canadian households, inadequate income to afford these necessities. Since the early seventies, the poverty rate fell from about 12 per cent of Canadian households to about 5%. Philippines Municipality of Rosario, Batangas, Philippines implemented in the human Aksyon NG statement Rosario 2001, after the security plan ecosystem use this concept as a strategy primarily through the basic minimum needs approach to improving the quality of life - a system of community information (MBN-CBIS) under the "Philippine government ". This approach has helped the municipal government prioritize families and communities to intervention, as well as rationalizing the allocation of funds for social development. United States In the United States, similar measures are called criteria of self-sufficiency or living in income levels. Unlike the level of poverty at the federal level (FPL), which is calculated from a single variable, and national (the cost of food), assume that these models that different households have different needs, based on factors such as number of children's age in the household, and the costs of housing in a particular area (usually province) where they lived [4] In line with the principles to meet the basic needs, these measurements do not include any additional funds for entertainment, savings, debt repayment or extraordinary expenses or avoided, such as repairing cars. It is supposed to be adults working and paying taxes; also includes the costs of all government, charitable organizations, and family benefits, such as free medical care through medical, free food program, food stamps, Ministry of Agriculture or the Food Bank, or child care-free too. [5] All these costs are ignored by the formal measurement of the Popular Forces of Liberation, but in the level of self-sufficiency. Different costs of the minimum in the region. Housing, child care, food, transportation, health care, and other necessary expenses, in addition to the net taxes, need families in Warren County from the middle class in north-western Pennsylvania to one adult and two children (school, one, one age school) a minimum the income of 30.269 dollars to pay his own way in 2006. , [6] child care is the biggest expense in this budget, followed by housing, taxes and food prices. The same family, living in the wealthy area of Seattle and Washington will be necessary to earn 48.269 dollars to be self-sufficient. [7] These figures contrast sharply with the popular forces of the liberation of this year, which was only 16,600 dollars for any family of the third person. Reference

Delete Seems to be little more than a duplication of Basic needs. —Soap— 17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even before the OR. Arabic articles should be on the Arabic wikipedia. Not here. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Quintana, and suggest speed close per SNOW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Summing up the arguments for keeping: An accusation of bad faith (Lugnuts) seems inaccurate; disregarded. "I think we should have a very low threshold for keeping these articles" (meco) is WP:ILIKEIT; disregarded. "Repeat AfDs are disruptive" (Dream Focus, Pcap, Dr. Blofeld) is untrue for reasonable cases, which this appears to be; disregarded. Accusations of personal vendetta (Carrite); disregarded. "All (X) are notable" (Dr. Blofeld) is simply not consensus for almost all cases of X, and based on AfD discussions, it seems clear that bilateral relations are not among the exceptions; disregarded. That leaves assertions that sufficient reliable sources exist. Summing up the arguments for deleting: An assertion that the sources in use are not secondary and/or do not cover the subject in enough depth; that the article is a WP:SYN or a collection of factoids. After reviewing the sources, I find these arguments persuasive. Take, for instance, the Reuters source -- reliable, certainly, but the content is this: "The changes were aimed at making Norwegian shipping rules more like those in the European Union, but industry groups have said the move might force some to register in tax havens such as Bermuda or Cyprus." I reject the assertion that the mere mention of Cyprus makes this an article on the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations; it is clearly not. (And yes, I can already see the DRV coming.) Shimeru (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

neither country has embassies, could not find anything on trade between countries, the size of aid is merely less than 5 million Euros. according to this [49] last agreement was in 1963 which means the Governments and leaders are not that interested in ongoing relations. I could only find an article on tax minimisation, but many rich people (and companies) set up in lower taxed countries worldwide. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was the rationale you used when you first listed this article @ AfD. Seems a pointy nomination to me. Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded my reasoning in reference to trade, aid, tax minimisation and a lack of sources. your argument contains no evidence in addressing WP:N and WP:GNG and is therefore WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a clearly notable subject with plenty of WP:RS. Hence the keep. Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there articles for Norwegian and Cypriot foreign relations? If so, perhaps a merge would work. - BalthCat (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and enough information for a standalone article. The dollar amounts and the years don't matter, all that matters is what number or year is reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at first glance it might not appear to be notable, but apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail. Pantherskin (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Plenty of sources indicating the existence of the bilateral relations. Also there are reliable sources for Cyprus as a tax-haven for Norwegians including a colony of retirees in Pafos. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how the image adds much value to this article given that it features no notable people or features. It is merely a bunch of people having lunch and therefore its justification for use is questionable. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on the rule. Would the article on cats have to have a famous cat, or can any cat be the image for the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the article is about persian cats then a picture of a cat is appropriate. But a picture of a bunch of non notable people having lunch? LibStar (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The picture is pointless. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

picture has now been removed for a very good reason as in this edit [50]. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should keep a very low threshhold for keeping these articles. By me the article has quite enough for it to remain. __meco (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same nominator has been renominating articles that he failed to have deleted a year ago. Please stop doing this. You are just wasting everyone's time. I'm going to just copy and paste what I said last time, since its the same discussion over again. The AFD a year ago did end in Keep, by the way. Dream Focus 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if you checked for entries in the newspaper from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention. So far, the article list the financial connection Norway has with this small nation. That sounds like something noteworthy to me. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established by reliable sources for these relations. Simply listing treaties and other agreements and calling it a "relation" is synthesis. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and useful article. WP:synth exists to prevent a special type of Original Research where sourced are synthetic combined to form novel conclusions. There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship! For human relationships, folk might sometimes talk about the quality of the relationship itself in abstract or poetic terms. In contrast, for bilateral relationships, serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is padded with a moderate number of sources that are primary, non-independent, and/or not really about the subject of the article, but has no sources that fulfill the WP:GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's a difference between being a historian and an encyclopedian, and if we're going to be mindful of it, we should delete this page and only create an article on this topic once coverage of the topic itself actually exists in reliable, independent sources. FWIW, these relations also fail my criteria for notability of bilateral relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any primary sources used, can you please point one out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced and informative article. The nomination is based on the nominator's own opinion on what notability standards should be for these articles. In the absence of specific guidelines, WP:GNG applies, and this article passes that test. Repeatedly nominating articles on personal standards is WP:DISRUPTION. The nominator is advised to write his standards as a guideline proposal and conduct an RfC for its adoption instead of these repeated nominations. Pcap ping 10:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International relations are notable. Agree with Pcap. There are so much better things people could be getting on with that these repeated nominations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GAL. Properly-sourced, verifiable, neutral, factually accurate. Wikipedia is not paper, the inclusion of articles on esoteric topics impinges in no way on any individual's WP experience. Why is this even being considered for deletion? Is this a personal vendetta being played out in public? I wonder... Please STOP harassing the esoteric bilateral relations articles! Carrite (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know articles (i.e. electrons) were subject to protection from harassment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The users who value them are. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once again, a fictitious topic that no amount of trivia will be able to validate without evidence of its actually having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. And could RAN please stop abusing fair use of images? Uploading a copyrighted image of some random people having lunch in order to prove one's case at AfD marks a new low. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random people would be William Thornton Kemper, Sr. and Nicolai Fechin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That last bit is off topic and not particularly constructive or civil. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not off topic, insertion on a picture was discussed above in the AfD as pointless and part of a desperate attempt to save this article by inserting a picture of non notable people having lunch. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a pathetic attempt to dress up the article with facts and figures and other nonsense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Facts and figures of bilateral relations are welcome but pictures of non notable people having lunch is about as good as the time you inserted student of country X being attacked in country Y as somehow furthering the case for X-Y relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any Wikipedia rule that says that the individuals in a notable NGO have to themselves be notable to be in an image. Not everyone gets to be a Bono. Does this cat and mouse have to be as famous as Tom and Jerry or a star from Cats (musical) to be used in the article on cats? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a limit to what is useful, consensus has shown in this AfD that the picture of these people having lunch is close to pointless. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 15 people commenting, I only see you and Biruitorul complaining about the image. If you want to start a new thread on your concept of people-in-images-have-to-be-notable themselves, go ahead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: passes WP:GNG with flying colours. I endorse Pcap comment of asking the nom to submit a guideline to RfC instead of keeping trying disruptive AfD's. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same old mundane agreements about double taxation and "we recognize you". The non-notable functioning of bureaucrats. Nothing significant that couldn't easily be merged into the respective "Foreign relations of" articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Continual renomination of an article in hopes of getting the result you want is reason enough to not delete it, and instead to look at ways of improving it. And I don't see any rule that says two countries have to be at war to have a "relations" article about them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain how it meets WP:N and WP:GNG, I certainly did not support the 2nd renomination. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, in all fairness, the first nom was over a year ago and the second one was a procedural close, which LibStar didn't even do. So saying he is "continually renominating it" isn't really that accurate. He renominated it once, over a year later. No speed record there. Of course we also know that consensus can change....Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by getting different voters. Truth to tell, at first I assumed this article was a joke. Looks like it's not, in fact, a joke. One complaint somewhere was something about, "if we had all country X - country Y combinations, it would be like 20,000." That's a totally irrelevant argument, unless we're running out of disk space or something. In fact, it could be useful to have all those combinations available. (The rules of Third Normal Form come to mind here.) As a reader, I might want to see the status of relations between the US and Canada, or the UK and Argentina, or maybe even Cyprus and Norway. And if you don't have it here, what's the alternative? To post it in TWO articles? So much for the savings in disk space! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Niteshift, a keep !vote should be based on how an article meets WP:N or WP:GNG not simply complaining about renomination. please keep your arguments relevant to WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, we can agree to disagree about the notability of the article, but I think we can both agree that a span of 13 months between nominations that were allowed to run their course doesn't really count as "continual renomination", can't we? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, it does. What's different 13 months ago from now? That you managed to get different voters? If the article were truly junk, it would have been gone long ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Bugs, you know that the premise of "if it was junk, it would be gone" is bunk. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the death by 1,000 cuts approach, such as the repeated attempts to remove the images from the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And oddly, I see your repeated insertion of irrelevant material as being a corollary to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture's relevance would be improved if the context were a little clearer. It seems to be composed of Norwegians visiting Cyprus. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) Something's amiss with the "not notable" argument. If two nations' relationships are "not notable", it raises the argument that the nations themselves are "not notable". I don't think that works here. In fact, what we should have, to be as informative as possible, is all 20,000 of those "relationship" articles, or at least redirects if the subject is covered elsewhere. For example, I don't think there's an article about the relationship between the UK and Sealand, but the subject is sufficiently covered in the Sealand article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Baseball Bugs! Our project is one of the few information stores in the world with the potential resource to capture the whole set of ~20,000 relationships, which would be a very pleasing and usesful achievement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the closer discounts everyone who is claiming any relation article is notable (the ongoing general dispute, and the Afd record on several other such articles is prima facie evidence this is not the case), and if they also discount all the arguments to avoid being given above by various people, then he has no option but to delete this article, because the deleters are the ones pointing out how it miserably fails our criteria for inclusion. Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic of a notable bi-lateral relation. And let's not forget that the information is not 'lost' if this article is deleted, what little of worthy substance there is here, would simply be moved to the more appropriate location, which is not this random intersection, because a lot of this info is not exclusive to the Cyprus-Norway relation alone. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, a serious discussion of a bilateral relationship largely focuses on the concrete diplomatic events and other exchanges between the two peoples. What you seem to be dismissing as factoids is the very stuff that international relations are made of. GNG does not require sources to address whole subject in detail . A function of a tertiary source like our encyclopaedia is to collate information from secondary soruces, and thus often to produce an article more comprehensive in scope than any one source. As WP:Notability put its: ** “ Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. ** The references provided easily meet this requirement. And while several of the sources may not be independent or secondary, enough of them are to easily meet all the GNG requirements. Information may not be destroyed if we delete the article – but it very much would be lost. Information theory emphasises the importance of adequate retrieval mechanisms. A bilateral relations article allows us to gather all the important facts for a relationship in one place, which may be of great utility for different types of reader - individuals from country Z interested in Y for personal reasons, enterprises exploring opportunities for further trade, diplomatic staff looking for common ground to form coalitions of the willing to tackle issues at international conferences... FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reading of notability, and the purpose of Wikipedia as a tertiary information source, is way off. I think your explanation of who would be looking for this random collection, and why, is just bizarre. The GNG absoltuely does require evidence of a discussion of the topic as a whole. Where you see significant coverage of a relation in sources, I see significant coverage of the actual subjects dealt with by the sources, which isn't the bi-lateral relation. By all means create articles on the tax status of cyprus, or the shipping regulations of the EU, or whatever else, but don't pretend that their topical relation, as presented in this article, is anything but an invention of Wikipedia, rather than simply being reflected by Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable. As for the last agreement betweeen the countries being in 1963, remember that notability is not temporary. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Biruitorul (talk · contribs) and, in paticular, the criteria developed by Yilloslime (talk · contribs). The article's content is tenuous and not adequately supported by germane reliable sources. Finally, I entirely agree with the statement from MickMacNee (talk · contribs) – "Some suggest it is 'well referenced'. So? This is not the sole bar for inclusion here, as everybody surely knows if they are being honest. The article itself does not say one substantial thing that suggests this specific relation has been noted in independent third party sources as a topic. It is a collation of various referenced factoids, which absolutely does not translate into a coherent topic." ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are idiosyncratic criteria of a single user a policy or a guideline? If Yilloslime wants to submit its guideline in a RfC and manage it to be an exception to WP:GNG, then fine, but it's not happened yet. About germane RS, I endorse Feydhuxtable comments above. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall using the phrase "policy" or "guideline" in relation to the criteria. You may dismiss them as idiosyncratic^{[citation needed]} but I found them perceptive and insightful, and agree with their substance.

My reference to them was simply a shorthand for saying, "I agree entirely with the argument which was so eloquently put forth, on this page and on another, within the User: namespace, by Yilloslime (talk · contribs)," which I thought would be simple and clear. How I was mistaken. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it was very simple and clear. It is simply not a cogent argument for deletion, because it refers to criteria that are not based in policy nor guidelines, no matter how "perceptive and insightful" you feel they are (I personally find them "myopic and superficial" but that's just my opinion). --Cyclopia ^talk 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But if I'd just stated the substance of this guidelines in my own words, in a stand-alone argument on an AfD page, like very editor's argument in every AfD, that would have been acceptable? Come off it! ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been the same, quite obviously. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria are basically just a restatement of WP:GNG with the addition of the WP:COMMONSENSE criteria that if countries share a border or fought a war against each other or one colonized the other than their relations are inherently notable. The only novel part is saying that if countries don't have embassies then their relations are not notable. This is based on my observations, having participated in dozens of these AfDs, that when there are no embassies, there are never independent sources covering the the countries' relations directly and in detail. So the topic fails GNG. If editors would prefer that I (and whoever else agrees with these criteria) transclude the page in AfDs rather than simply linking to it, I'm happy to oblige, but it seems unnecessary. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xcelerix[edit]

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

This article, along with ERDB Entity Related Database, were both created by the same account. It looks like these were created solely to promote the product. Now, there may indeed be some notability here, but these two new articles do nothing to indicate the importance of the topic. In any case, I can see no reason for both articles to exist. — Timneu22 · talk 15:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure about the notability but certainly this article should be either deleted or redirected to ERDB Entity-Related DataBase Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telesys Communications Inc[edit]

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

Article has been here for almost a year and still does not indicate how the company is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. I can't find a reliable source that mentions them in a significant way, just directory listings. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - A7, corporation with no indication of importance provided (or found). So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I don't think it should be speedied though, simply because it has had a PROD in the past. Chzz ► 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like just another VoIP/Internet phone business: was established in 1990 and was incorporated in 1994. The company has been a member of The Better Business Bureau since 2002 and is in good standing. Telesys is also a member of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. These do not look like assertions of historical encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, also borderline g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable internship program. No reliable sources provided and none found. Article is a thinly disguised advertisement for the program. TN X Man 14:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independent refs with significant coverage have been presented to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. The article reads like an advertisement. Edison (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - A7, organization with no indication of notability. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3 blatant hoax. " ...first described in 1961 by Dr Skollob Adáol" - read his name backwards, that's enough for G3. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VBLS[edit]

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

Possible hoax. No ghits for any of the significant terms in the article, including the name of the disease (in various spellings and forms) and the name of the supposed creator. No references. If anyone can find anything, please provide it. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The article is also the only google result for linquinamentum and abdominal ortum. It appears this is a mash-up of superior mesenteric artery syndrome and... well perhaps garbage. Oh, and it involves Dr. Bolloks-backwards and Mr. Knob. - BalthCat (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, Dr Bolloks is talking about "diarrhea of the mouth". "Viscus-Bowel" is liquid poop (sort of) and "-mentum" is "chin". It arose (ortum) from the stomache. The symptoms include "intense mood swings, depression, sexual frustration and general deliriousness", farting and snoring. Sounds like someone is having problems with a pregnant woman and/or teen. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax.—Sandahl (♀) 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax Chzz ► 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. ialsoagree (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus has swung to considering them notable, and the alternative would be a redirect rather than deletion. The dicdef argument doesn't seem to hold, as the article is more than just a definition and there are plenty of sources to use to expand the article. Fences&Windows 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarball (oil)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, WP:NOTDICDEF GregJackP (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, also looks to be someone's opinionated description of an uncommon formation of tar. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that your complaint has anything to do with whether this article should be deleted, but what part of "A tarball is a blob of crude or refined oil which has been weathered after floating in the ocean." is opinionated? I don't understand what you are objecting to here. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wrt dicdef - look at that page again. "One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated." dicdef is not a reason to delete here. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect to Tar instead. My mistake, I could've sworn the article said something different when I looked at it. I must have read it too fast. That's never happened before. ALI ^{nom nom} 03:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tar doesn't look like an appropriate place to merge to (yes, merge). Read the beginning paragraphs again. Perhaps it happened a second time? - BalthCat (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sigh... no, that's just me assuming Tar would be the relevant article without looking at it. Merge to wherever would be appropriate. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or...~~: This is a stub issue, not a dicdef issue. Clearly the NOAA felt that there was sufficient public awareness of and concern about this "uncommon formation of tar" that it merited releasing an explanation in layman's terms, complete with FAQs and sources. This could be merged into another article, if an appropriate one exists, and the disambiguation page tarball edited to direct readers to the appropriate place. The existence of the NOAA publication implies that visitors should be able to get from tarball to the explanation of what they are without difficulty, especially in the wake of the recent massive spill, which will likely result in more hits. What this article needs is an elaboration of the weathering process as per the NOAA article, second paragraph. - BalthCat (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There wasn't an AfD tag on the article, but I've added one now. Calathan (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oil spill.—Sandahl (♀) 19:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably good, but a mention of tar balls would need to be made on the page in order to avoid astonishment.
  - Oil spill article would not be a good place for tarballs as it states they are "due to human activity". Tarballs are both man made and of natural origin, e.g. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1225/ . Of course, we could redirect Oil spill to Oil In the Ocean or something... --Rajah (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tarball page is a dab page, so no need for a hatnote

Delete WP:NOTDIC, WP:GNG Chzz ► 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect. I can not comprehend why someone would claim that tar balls fail GNG. Is there seriously any question that tar balls are covered significantly by reliable secondary sources? Complaints about dicdef are similarly misplaced; we do not delete stubs just because they are stubs. wp:NOTDICDEF advises on how articles like this one should evolve, it does not say to delete any stubs that only provide definitions. Redirecting to oil spill sounds reasonable, although tar balls can show up on the beach without oil spills. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~and disambiguate~~: ~~Tarball has multiple possible meanings as is revealed by a google search.~~ Tarball in the context currently being addressed would probably fit better under the existing article on tar or oil spills, and could be expanded to include additional information that is presented in its current reference. In addition, other references are available that detail tarballs including a national geographic publication about tarballs and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. ialsoagree (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Definitely has sources. I've expanded it and added 6 more sources. Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support a !redirect to oil spills. (GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: My intended goal is for wikipedia to have at least the following to say about tarballs:

By the way, they're not just a file format.
they're usually from oil wells.
Its something on the minds of the NOAA people dealing with the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, so let's show what they're talking about : maybe a picture.
sometimes they occur naturally
something about how they form and how they come to your beach.
People get government grants to study strange bits of goo that wash up on the beach.

I think that that the above adds up to a "keep" or at least "Merge", otherwise the noun doesn't occur in WP. In that case (i.e. a redirect), I think we miss items 3-6 above. #6 constitutes a PSA :) -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a stub. "Oil" was probably a stub once, too. Of course, you'd've found the definition for it in the dictionary, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any and all of this can go on the oil page, if need be. TN 05 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (most likely with oil spill) Hellbus (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, failing that, merge to oil spill. The sources show that this is both a topic of public interest and scientific inquiry, so it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Sandstein 13:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merging with 'oil spill' would be goofy since tarballs also occur as the result of natural oil seeps, and the oil spill entry specifically confines itself to releases of oil due to human activity. Phanatic (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That was one of my concerns with merging, but I wasn't energetic enough to confirm if there were non-spill sources of tar ball. If you have a source handy, you should drop it here so that we can settle in on keeping this as a stub. - BalthCat (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  From my above comment: "Tarballs are both man made and of natural origin, e.g. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1225/" --Rajah (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the phenomenon has risen to the level of notability following the gulf of mexico spill. de Bivort 23:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar has about a 1000 articles over the past 5 years with the terms "tarball" and "oil" (to get rid of the pure computer usages). Why don't the deletionists do a Google search of a new page's topic before crying "Not a dictionary!" ? --Rajah (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, we're not all bad people. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rajah. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep 66.93.203.152 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.183.147 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Donaldson[edit]

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

Article lacking third party sources about non notable local councillor who has not held any national or subnational office and therefore fails notability criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ran for Parliament twice. Notability asserted, but unsourced, in relation to the Bolton 7. On the other hand, no sources in some time, and a BLP. :| - BalthCat (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Next to no coverage. May have some connection to a notable court case, but that alone isn't a reason for an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable local politician. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion were made. Fences&Windows 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Phipps[edit]

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

Reason Scott9432 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Having read through this article out of interest, I don't think this person is exactly in any way special compared to other activists, if every activist were to be given their own page, wikipedia would have taken over most of the internet by now.[reply]

Keep. Jill Phipps has become notable since her death. --Michig (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Independant found her death by veal truck notable enough to address. There are also a number of google books and google scholar hits. - BalthCat (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has featured in the national media. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many people feature in the media who haven't been given a wikipedia page. And I know of several news reports of activists protecting forests who have been killed while doing so by logging equipment or the trees falling themselves, incidently, none of these activists feature on wikipedia. EDIT: Also the quality of the article itself has some issues, alot of it sounds as if it was written by a friend, which I'm sure I read somewhere isn't supposed to be on wikipedia. Scott9432 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has been prominent in national media. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those other activists are not relevant to this discussion. If you mentioned them by name, they may be demonstrably notable for the coverage of their death. Even if they aren't, no one claimed that the decision by the media and book authors to focus on Phipps and not others is somehow logical. Articles in the wrong tone can be edited to have the proper tone; that alone is not a reason to delete. - BalthCat (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be assessed as it is together with its potential for improvement, and not confused with non-existent articles about "other activists". Snowman (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I implied. - BalthCat (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the other activists ARE relevant to this discussion, the point is that she was an activist, which many people are, she protested for the same things that she and many others believe in, but I just don't understand how she is notable enough, what has she done that other activists haven't? And are you now saying that someone has to be well featured in the media to be notable? Scott9432 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being featured in reliable sources is precisely what makes a subject notable for Wikipedia. If there are other activists as notable as Jill Phipps who don't yet have Wikipedia articles then you are welcome to create them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article show that the subject was still being featured in the media 10 years after her death, and, by clicking on the Google books link helpfully provided at the top of this discussion, we can see that there is plenty more evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly was a notable animal rights activist, according to lots of reliables sources. First Light (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still personally don't think this article is notable and should be deleted, but clearly the majority is against me here, do I need to do something to close this discussion or does a moderator do it? Also do I delete the notice thing? Scott9432 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aban Pearl[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The sinking of this rig has generated some news reports because of the concidental timing with the Deepwater Horizon incident, but that seems to be its sole claim to notability. It should be noted that: "Venezuelan energy officials said that the sunken natural gas rig posed no environment threat and that no workers had died". Compared to similar sunken platforms deatailed in Category:Collapsed oil platforms, this one seems unremarkable and non-notable. No fatalities, and no remarkable failure mode, certainly not one that is likely to lead to significant design or industry changes (one of its pylons simply took on water), which is the standard of notability applied to other objects destroyed in accidents or other industrial incidents, such as aircraft. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rig itself notable? If so, Keep, tidy up etc, if not salvage what can be and transwiki it to Wikinews, assuming the author is happy with the difference in licensing over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it still exists, it is just 1000 ft lower than it was a week ago. This is also very interesting to the general class of ships. This is no different than, aircraft carriers, or tankers, or cruse ships. Just because there is a lot of news about floating oil platforms does not mean that all information is news. Its Metadata does not change if it is in the news or not so it is wikipedia. This should be kept. --Exprexxo (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is clearly about the platform as a whole and not about one event as the nominator implies. It is well referenced and a decent size also --Daviessimo (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware this article is about a platform, but as far as I know, platforms are not automatically notable. If they are automatically notable, then by all means, please show some evidence that this is the case. Without that, the Afd rests on the question: on what basis is this platform even remotely notable, if not due to news reports based on a pure coincidence of timing? MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst the media coverage has been sensationalist owing to the coincidence, I would take the view that such a structure sinking is a notable event (I am willing to be convinced that they do this on a highly regular basis, however). There may be a case to rename to an article about the event. It carried 95, making it quite a sizable platform. Also, I suspect that there may be changes in procedure that are often overlooked at the close of the investigation - although I do recognise that that is something for the future, not now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If a whole host of ships/aircraft can be notable enough for wikipedia this can. God knows virtually every terror attacks killing 10 people even gets its own page. Nevertheless, the rig on its own was a big money spinner, and then too the biggest earner for the company and that in a foreign country. One might call for an article expansion but that doesn't equate to a delete.Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Lihaas--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I don't think anybody here really knows if this platform is notable or not, but I cannot be bothered to even attempt to tackle the various diverging avenues being travelled here by the keepers, so I withdraw. I know for a fact not even every sunk ship is automatically notable, let alone every ship ever built. And I find the various claims that this particular platform is a special one entirely unconvicing, these sorts of projects and installations always have unique traits that can be spun as defining characteristics. Offshore drilling is hardly a routine industry knocking out hundreds of identical installations, yet even so it will be a thousand years before Wikipedia has articles for even 10% of these platforms, certainly not if they are only created when one stumbles into the New York Times for a day. The news aspect is patently just that, news. The sinking was unremarkable, and nobody died. Nothing about this article says 'notable' to me in the slightest, but patently others see something different, we even have a 'strong' keep, so I guess the fate of this article will have to await the deletion wars of 2015. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source It is "India's largest offshore drilling and oil field services provider", it is supposed to have "suffered a major setback", it was "one of Aban’s biggest money spinning rig earning $358,000 dollars or about a crore and a half rupees a day" and "it is one of the biggest revenue generators". Might or might not be helpful. --candle•wicke 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Johnfos (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Brooks MD[edit]

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

Notability is not established.

Delete I can't see any particular notability here. "Reading Price Charts Bar By Bar: The Technical Analysis of Price Action for the Serious Trader" at a list price of US$75.00 isn't going to be a best-seller. Ref 4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez takes us (OK, me at least) to the front page of PubMed from where we are supposed to find things for ourselves. Too hungry (once again, me). Many people publish medical things. Not all are notable. There may be notability in Brooks's career. I can't see it as the article stands. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - He's published a book and been in a few webinars. Given his common name, it's difficult to find references about him via Google and ISI searches. As it stands, I don't see notability demonstrated per WP:CREATIVE, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Perhaps if someone finds significant coverage in reliable sources or evidence he passes CREATIVE or PROF, I could change my mind. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's written a book; but I couldn't find any commentary or review or any other reliable sourcing ABOUT the book, thus fails WP:Author. Google News finds exactly one hit, an article he wrote for Futures magazine. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether keep or delete, the article should be moved to some other title such as "Al Brooks (author)" (Al Brooks, without the MD, is how he is listed on the book cover [51]) or "Albert Leveille Brooks" (which is how he holds his medical license [52]) or something else without the "MD". Titles like MD, PhD, etc are never supposed to be part of the article title, and in any case his medical degree seems to be irrelevant to any notability he might have. Note that Al Brooks already exists, as a redirect to Albert Brooks, an actor. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as sources go, it cites the a book listing, a webinar that is scheduled to happen next month, and some discussion from an non-notable internet forum. Can't find anything in the references that point to notability. 67.204.10.250 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a reason this debate is still open? It was initiated 10 days ago and I don't see a relist notice. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It wasn't listed properly. Today should be the last day. 67.204.10.250 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Street, Ottawa[edit]

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

No indication of significance or notability; streets are not inherently notable (IP address that has been removing tags from the page also removed the PROD). Blurpeace 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm usually kind to streets, but I can't find anything that indicates notability for this rather short typical residential street. I'll change my vote if someone finds anything significant.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only one news hit for "Harvey Street" Ottawa, and that wasn't for the street itself. Don't see any indication of notability, sorry. David V Houston (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and seemingly original research as well. Could be worth a mention at List of roads in Ottawa though. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the above, but would be suitable to add to roads in Ottawa article. Shadowjams (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anything useful to I Killed The Prom Queen and Parkway Drive and then redirect to, er, somewhere. One of the band articles, I'd guess. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed The Prom Queen / Parkway Drive: Split CD[edit]

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

I had Speedy tagged this. If this were a regular album, it would be a redirect to the band, but since it's a split CD (and not even a full album) I think it should be delete UtherSRG (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the speedy as I didn't think it was in the spirit of A9 as we have articles on the two artists involved and as such I felt it needed a wider airing. We probably need to develop some guidelines for albums (or whatever) with multiple artists. However, given that I could find no sources to show the notability of this CD and the problems with a redirect I agree that deletion is the way to go. Dpmuk (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article relates to two bands in question, both of which are notable Australian metalcore bands. The split CD in question documents a cruicial point early on in their career, where these two bands combined. Especially important is the fact that this was Parkway Drive's first release, and as the band today caters for an large international market today, a full and comprehensive discography is needed, to convey a proper understanding of the bands career. However it is a point that there is little notable online sources for this album. This is because the album is currently out of print, however Wikipedia contains pages of many albums that are out of print. However, all the information is accurate, because Parkway Drive: THE DVD provide comprehensive information on this album, even when relatively no informatione exists online. The reason I decided to create this page, was that the DVD was released, providing this extra information. Tristwin (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant independent coverage (the DVD does not address this). As important as this is claimed to be, there doesn't seem to be anything to back this up. The above comment is a good example for WP:ATA.. Rehevkor ✉ 15:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes the independent coverage of this album is lacking, but independent coverage of both of the bands is wide and comprehensive. This is why the album page should be kept; not only does it provide information on such details as tracklisting and release dates, it is also important for further understanding about the careers and histories of these bands. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Tristwin (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristwin, that is contrary to WP:MUSIC. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider inserting this information in the main Parkway Drive and I Killed the Prom Queen page, but I thought it would be more useful to have the information all in one place. Would merging the parts of the information that are important in understanding the history of Parkway Drive and I Killed the Prom Queen into the main articles on each band be more appropirate? Tristwin (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if the decision becomes to delete this page, I'll move relevant information to the main pages. Thanks for your help :) Tristwin (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need for settling this in an AfD, this should've been worked out at the talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Junior Clasical League state chapters[edit]

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

Single editor (User:Reywas92)has made sweeping changes to multiple different articles without any discussion. User has grouped state chapter articles of National Junior Classical League by redirecting each of these pages to newly created group article. Each of these indiv. state chapter articles have been in existence for some time, have been the subject to debate and discussion, and ongoing constructive editing. Many of these indiv. articles have multiple citations from reliable sources demonstrating notability. I consider Reywas92's recent edits unconstructive and bordering on vandalism. This article is fundamentally unnecessary as: A) The National organization has a sub-section regarding these state chapters, and B) Many of these state chapters have their own pages.

Replacing North Dakota article w/ redirect
Replacing Ohio article w/ redirect
Replacing Florida article w/ redirect
Replacing Illinois article w/ redirect
Replacing Kentucky article w/ redirect
Replacing Mass. article w/ redirect
Replacing New Hampshire article w/ redirect
Replacing North Carolina article w/ redirect
Replacing Texas article w/ redirect MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reformat. This page can be usefully used in showing an overview of every chapter, but keeping this much information for fifty chapters would likely make the page ripe for getting split up in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reverted all the pages. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to engage them on their talk page so we can figure this out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "them"? All of this was the work of a single editor. Are you simply trying to get others involved? MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up links to this discussion on each of the state chapter discussion pages. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the editor in a neutral tone so I don't risk pissing them off should I get the gender wrong. I've already done it once and it was a doozy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I was just confused regarding sing. v. plural. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with only a brief section for each chapter, a group-page would quickly balloon beyond a reasonably sized single article. WP:Article size It also seems absurdly redundant to have both indiv. and group pages. MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I could fix up everything on the page later today to make that happen. I see nothing wrong with doing so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged list and Delete state pages. I apologize for my hasty actions, but the state pages are full of non-notable, nonencyclopedic information. There is no reason to list all the non-notable student officers from the past three years, nor is it necessary to list every school in the state with an associated Latin program. The North Carolina page is the worst, being a vanity list of winners of non-notable contests: the author put his name in the article multiple times. Much information is in-universe details relevant only to those connected to the topic, like convention winners, uncited bragging, and specific team names and members (Texas). The pages' content includes redundant summaries of what the JCL is, like the colors, song, and creed. It is simply unnecessary to have articles for each state chapter, and I will AFD them should a solution not be found here. As a member of the Indiana JCL, I know that a state chapter is not necessarily notable on its own. Being local chapters of a national organization, they do not pass WP:CLUB; these articles lack secondary sources with substantial coverage. I went through the chapter directory and saw that few states except the largest even had their own websites. I know that even if most states had information about them, a merged page would not be too long. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I am in the process of removing some of that information. I do believe that the North Carolina one was the epitomy of how bad it has gotten and I have already substantially cleaned that one up. I did copy paste the original pages for a basic start, but I'm sure we can fix them all up. Unfortunately, they have been left to be crowded in a lot of crap that really should have never been there in the first place. If you are willing to work with me, I am sure we can figure something out here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep state pages and delete merged list. There are plenty of third-party sources for each state chapter that could bring each article to meet WP:CLUB. If the pages are restored, I will gladly find, add, and cite these third-party sources for all of the JCL state chapter articles, not just the OJCL like I've been doing. In my opinion, these wild changes are reckless edits and they need to be reverted. Oxguy3^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were restored right after this page was created. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I noticed that right after my first post and forgot to come back here and change it. I'm gonna start working on improving those pages. Oxguy3^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What third-party references??? This is the only subtantial link, other than some school press releases, all on the Ohio page. Maybe keep that one, but the rest have zero outside references. Please prove it and start finding those. I don't understand why the *must be* a separate article for these anyway. My philosophy is not to have a separate page if it cleanly fits within another, and these do. There is simply not enough information to warrant their own pages. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to counter that argument with this. There is a possibility that some of these chapters don't publish information because the web publishers don't have access to that sort of stuff. I know the ones for my state's JCL, and I can attest to the fact that the only promotional stuff they publish are photos and results for certamen and other stuff like that. If you can tell me your formula for finding these links while excluding the self-promotional stuff, then please tell me because it's going to me near impossible to find them the way I am going about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Paraisy[edit]

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

The fighter has fought for two notable events: Bellator and The Ultimate Fighter. However, the fighter never made it past the elimination round on the Ultimate Fighter show, and was sent home; never seen again. As for fighting for Bellator, he was given one fight, which was for the welterweight tournament, he lost in the first round. Bellator released him from the contract and he hasn't fought in a pro fight since then. Not only is he not notable, but the article is a stub. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I disagree. Paraisy is a notable TUF contestant because of what happened in the episode, he's fought in Bellator and has fought some notable names, e.g. Dave Menne. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He fought in one episode of TUF and fought one time in Bellator, both times, he was a loser. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winner or loser, he should fought in Bellator and TUF, both fairly high profile in the world of MMA. Also, as you've ignored, he's fought some high profile guys, including Menne. This gives him sufficient notability. ~~Keep~~ Paralympiakos (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't any any non trivial coverage for this person. The events he took part in or people he's fought may be notable, that is a long way from making him notable - WP:INHERIT - especially considering he lost. You can imagine he's notable all you want, but without anything to back is up it's a no go. Rehevkor ✉ 15:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous argument. First of all, WP:INHERIT says: "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group."

The very fact that this is a valid method of notability means your argument doesn't wash. As he's fought notable names, competed in a notable show and competed in two notable organisations, that means notability. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links are too tenuous to inherit notability in this case. Go find some significant coverage to support the notability instead of clutching at straws. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 15:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, how am I clutching at straws? Secondly, what's with the bad attitude? Thirdly, why are they tenuous? Paralympiakos (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly, WP:AGF. Fifthly, I'm not getting into a drawn out discussion. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. This ends my discussion here hopefully. I've made my point and if this article is deleted, then that's a shame. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Rehevkor ✉ 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His appearance on a reality show is not enough to prove his notability. He has no wins in notable events or against notable opponents. He has fought one notable fighter, but that's not enough to establish notability. Perhaps one day he'll be notable, but not yet. Astudent0 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ He's fought in Bellator Fighting Championships, he's fought in M-1 Global which is very notable for all the news with Fedor Emelianenko. He's fought Dave Menne, he's fought Hasegawa; both notable opponents. He's appeared on The Ultimate Fighter, he's had a notable incident on said show. What more do you want? Paralympiakos (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote multiple times like this, as it is deceptive towards a consensus, I have struck your extraneous "keep"s. As I said before notability is not inherited from these; WP:INHERIT (I suggest you read this properly rather than reading the first paragraph and stopping when you find a sentence you perceive supports your claims) explains that inherited notability is a fallacy, there are exceptions there are documented such as examples in WP:MUSIC, this is not one of those exceptions. Even winning any of the matches or tournaments wouldn't even guarantee notability. There needs to be significant coverage on the individual, which there does not seem to be. Significant coverage is the key phrase here, it's your call to prove notability, and this cannot be done by repeatedly claiming the fallacy that it is inherited. Go prove he is notability, by providing significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Rehevkor ✉ 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Now could you work on your attitude? Thanks.

I've read INHERIT many times and yes, he does have notability by the standards in said article. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol [I say lol here because there's nothing left to say, without significant coverage there's no article, end of] Rehevkor ✉ 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Russia[edit]

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

The title is certainly a WP:POV problem, and so is most of the text. I'm not saying that some of this article isn't salvageable, but it seems we need to delete this article and start with a) a more neutral title and b) a game-plan for presenting any of this on an appropriate page. As-is, this article should not be continued under this title and straight POV. — Timneu22 · talk 12:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were too fast to nominate. I suspect you just wanted to delete something, not to provide Wikipedia with content it requires. I oppose the nomination partly because this is mostly a plain translation from Russian Wikipedia article where it was approved, so it is within the overall policies. I suggest you don’t be such a deletist in the future. The article is in initial state and is to be expanded with more translations from the same Russian article. Sources are stated there, and that is said in References section, so article isn’t unsourced. You should mark the sections you don’t like with corresponding templates and shouldn’t attack the whole article. Please try to avoid saying things like "we need to delete this article and start with a)" because it’s in total contradiction with what Wikipedia is. --ssr (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I discovered to my chagrin, just because something is in a different language version of Wiki doesn't make it OK for English Wiki, as they have different rules. David V Houston (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it isn't the rule: it may be, or may be not. A translation is generally a good way to setup an article. --ssr (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my nomination. A POV-pushing title does not seem like an appropriate encyclopedic title. I did not do CSD, because some of the information here may be accurate, but I thought AFD would provide a means to discussing how this page should be handled. — Timneu22 · talk 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, how is this encyclopedic: Russia is one of the most politically and economically corrupt countries in the world? — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you you didn't CSD, very kind of you, that proves you wanted just to delete something. Also, keep in mind articles generally should be edited and may be renamed, not "deleted and started with a)". The quote you posted is the intro which is further explained in the article body with sourced data. --ssr (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I stand by the nomination on POV grounds. I have nothing left to say; we'll look at other editor contributions. — Timneu22 · talk 12:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! there may be a bigger issue here. These templates are quite POV in themselves... thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Corruption in Asia
Sovereign states	Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China Cyprus East Timor (Timor-Leste) Egypt Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen
States with limited recognition	Abkhazia Northern Cyprus Palestine South Ossetia Taiwan
Dependencies and other territories	British Indian Ocean Territory Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Hong Kong Macau
Category Asia portal

v t e Corruption in Europe
Sovereign states	Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom
States with limited recognition	Abkhazia Kosovo Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Transnistria
Dependencies and other entities	Åland Faroe Islands Gibraltar Guernsey Isle of Man Jersey Svalbard
Other entities	European Union

Keep. Corruption in Russia is very real, and receives a fair bit of new coverage. Timneu22 asks how "Russia is one of the most politically and economically corrupt countries in the world?" is encyclopedic. Well, political and economic corruption surely are. Most print encyclopedias wouldn't go into the level of detail of individual countries, but Wiki has more space. It is most certainly notable, getting lots of coverage in news sources. The map provided shows that the statement isn't POV, but supportable. Similarly, [53] lists Russia as 127 in list of 159 countries. David V Houston (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can one adequately reference a statement as blatant as [country] is one of the most corrupt contries in the world? — Timneu22 · talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - There are corruption surveys and rankings, such as Corruption Perceptions Index and Bribe Payers Index. The statement would indeed probably need to be made more precise/narrow though. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of news coverage on the subject. And like David said, Wiki is not Paper, so we can give the topic its own article, unlike print encyclopedias which have practical size limits. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the title does not display neutrality and wouldn't this title be offensive when there is only one article about corruption in countries this could possibly me merged with Russia or make a new article called political corruption instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs)
- Russia is far from singled out in having an article on this: Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Chile, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Venezuela, Corruption in the_United_States, Corruption in Armenia, Corruption in India, Corruption in Nigeria, Corruption in South_Africa, Corruption in Canada, Corruption in Cuba, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Paraguay --Cybercobra (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  As noted above with the templates. I am shocked — shocked — that these articles exist. They certainly aren't neutral; the Russian one has a list of things that are corruption, with no alternative viewpoints or balances. Maybe they are all fine, if we already have three "keep"s; but wow. Just wow. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real and relevant subject that is easily sourced. As the article is dealing with "corruption in Russia" the title is both accurate, specific and, viewed in the broader context that there is corruption everywhere, non-POV. This article meets none of the criteria for deletion. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as NPOV concerns go, I would like to point out that Corruption in the European Union redirects to Accountability in the European Union which seems like it could assuage the title concern as well as clearly expanding the scope of the article to allow for the presentation of both sides of the corruption issue. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hypothetical change seems to go well beyond the scope of this AfD, but it might be something to keep in mind. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of Corruption in Russia has been covered in reliable, third-party sources. If we are afraid of offending someone, let's start Corruption in the United States to balance this out. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a joke. A sure fire way to create a bad article is starting it to "balance out" some perceived NPOV with another article. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke, just a combination of my ignorance of NPOV issues and an attempt to belittle the concerns raised by this AFD. Can you please explain why that would be a bad idea? It appears somebody did start Corruption in the United States, maybe it should be deleted. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject matter, if POV is a problem, that can be fixed via editing. Deletion is not a valid cleanup technique. --Jayron32 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our editing policy to improve articles upon notable topics, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant topic to encyclopedias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —ssr (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Describes current and historic fact. Name is not POV; it is descriptive of the content and follows an established naming pattern of catgories and articles in Category:Corruption by country Hmains (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily sourced; "anti-corruption measures" is something that the government of the country itself touts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2010; 19:09 (UTC)
Keep A real issue, which is worthy of an entry. Although it should delve into the most famous of corruptive practices in Russia -- the rise and rise of the oligarchs. As Ezhiki says, corruption is one of the main issues that Medvedev himself resolved to tackle under his presidency...remains to be seen if anything firm will or won't happen there. Anyway, a legit article, but one which requires more information in it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had to remove "One of the most well-known civil servants, most of whose assets are under his wife's name (more than US$1 billion), is the Moscow Mayor, Luzhkov. His wife is active in the construction business on the territory that is run by her husband." from the article as it is unsourced, and potential WP:BLP information; it is present in an article on corruption so one can infer that both the mayor and his wife are corrupt. There are, of course, allegations of this from different quarters, but for it to be present in the article, it needs to be referenced, presented as allegation, and of course be NPOV. I would suggest that people keep this article on their watchlist for violations of BLP, particularly unsourced ones, such as that which I just removed. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to transfer sources from Russian version, as the whole text is translated from there. Russian article references this sentence to "Немцов Б. Лужков. Итоги // Аналитический доклад, 08 сентября 2009 года (http://www.nemtsov.ru/?id=705917)". If linked to this source, can the sentence you removed be included back again? Do we need to transfer sources generally? I started with a footnote saying "Article is translated and sources are in Russian version", but it was later removed. --ssr (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources need to be transferred. They don't need to be translated though. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you don’t go further, I think I’m in favor of returning the sentence to the article with reference to the source mentioned. According to recent news, "most essential facts" from the Nemtsov report "were not disproved" during past court trials, so the source can be viewed as reliable and sentence can be returned. --ssr (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH HORSEY WOAH. You want to use a news report on Boris Nemtsov, a member of the so-called "opposition", being found guilty of libel and being ordered to pay compensation, due to a "report" he wrote in which he accused Luzhkov and his wife of corruption, as a reference in an article on Wikipedia which all but states that Luzhkov and his wife are corrupt? This demonstrates that not only was I absolutely correct in pulling that unreferenced information from the article, but am also correct in saying that this article definitely needs eyes on it for violations of WP:BLP. I'm no fan of Luzhkov, I find his comments and stance on gay rights in Russia (see also Moscow Pride) to be especially reprehensible, but as much as I find him reprehensible, I can't sit back and allow information that violates WP:BLP to be introduced into articles which puts the foundation in a precarious position. The only thing that the reference can be used for is the fact that Nemtsov was found guilty of libel and was ordered to pay compensation. The accusations of a politician of the self-declared opposition can in no way be used to state a fact in any article on Wikipedia, especially when there have been legal repercussions because of those accusations. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While article could use improvement, it has ample sourcing to show the notability of the topic. The topic itself is in no way POV, and POV is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (me) after problems were addressed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RBE (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Speedyable orphan disambiguation page with only one Wikipedia article that could have the name (and that one is already the primary topic for RBE), and dependent upon deleted article Resource-based economy -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer necessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added two other articles that could be referred to as RBE. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Certain Point of View[edit]

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

No mentions in reliable sources I can find, fails WP:FILM by a mile. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The article had originally been created as a sister article to One Fine Day! when it was expected to be a more notable film (That article relating to the series was deemed acceptable). Since it's release was recent (March 30, 2010) and it has failed to gain notability in that time I do recommend deletion of this particular article. However, I do not recommend a title lock as this is a young film it is possible for it to gain notability in the future and thus would allow for reposting. Fkick (talk) 8:45 , 14 May 2010 (PST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Venkataramanujam[edit]

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

I can only find a trivial mention in one reliable source, the rest of the sources are puff-pieces, SPS or directory listing. Fails WP:BIO by a country mile. Would warrent a line on the One Fine Day! article. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - nothing there of substance; fails WP:ENTERTAINER, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, can see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Minor mention in the Chicago Sun-Times, but no significant coverage.--Beloved Freak 13:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Cameron Scott, it warrents a line in the One Fine Day! article, but he has not reached notability outside the Midwest at this time. I do not recommend a title lock however as it is possible he may gain notability in the future. Fkick (talk) 8:48 , 14 May 2010 (PST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Royals[edit]

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

Non notable university sports team, no evidence of inpendent coverage in multiple reliable sources. University sports in the UK are not notable (boat race excepted) and receive no coverage outside the institutions. Similar discussions at6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators Nuttah (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG with one google news hit. Article is concerned with an amateur unversity sports team, which has no claims to notability. The team plays a sport which is only of minimal notability within the UK and would not be considered even remotely notable within the wider American Football frame either. UK American football teams are nothing like US college teams, they seem essentially little more than social clubs. Although the deletion of other university UK American football teams should not be taken as a suitable reason for deleting this article, there seems to be nothing distinguishing Worcester from any other UK university team. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete All university teams are amateur and as such, are all their pages going to be deleted? Our biggest achievement so far is being associated into the BUAFL last year and for our first season within BUAFL we were praised for our play and manor both on and off the field within Britain. This site lead to a coach getting in contact with us last year in regards to a vacant head coach spot from Germany. Yes the sport of American football isn't huge in Britain and we are a team that is very much at the bottom of the achievement level but with this site it is increasing awareness of the sport and allowing people to see that we do play and we are trying to increase the awareness of the sport within the UK. (Stuart699 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Please note that Wikipedia exists to cover topics which are already deemed notable due to their coverage in reliable, third-party sources, not boost the profile of subjects which aren't...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stuart699 asks "All university teams are amateur and as such, are all their pages going to be deleted?". Basically, yes, unless they can show specific notability. Winning International championships, for instance. But 'amateur' competition has to be 'highest level' like the Olympics. Showing lots of independent, reliable news coverage works, too, to establish notability. David V Houston (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. per User:Fenix down Pit-yacker (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note If this article will be deleted, please delete 2010 Worcester Royals Season too. Kubek15 ^write/sign 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ....and 2009 Worcester Royals season too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need independent reliable sources. Sadly, notability has just yet not been achieved. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, all parts of the deletion rationale have been addressed by the revert, no delete votes standing. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkey Show[edit]

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

DELETE. Completely non-notable radio show, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should have reverted it, looks like adspam on a disambig page but can't touch it now without screwing up AFD tag.--Savonneux (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a disambiguation page which was ad-spammed. I removed the spam, leaving the disambiguation intact (which doesn't reference the radio show mentioned in the nomination at all). Careful to check an article's history before nominating for deletion, etc. etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunding[edit]

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

There is another article on same subject that is Levee or Dike (construction) (redirect). The "bunding" is a regional variation, likely south asian one. The present article has hardly any referenced info that is worth merging to the Levee article. Before it was discussed for merging here, but merging would be inappropriate for lot of unsourced original research text. So delete and redirect would be the right action, even history merge can be considered. Asided m plane (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although "bund" has an older meaning as "levee" (famously so for the Shanghai bund), the major use of bunding today is for retaining barriers around oil tanks etc., rather than rivers (the derived etymology is obvious). The articles are quite distinct and should remain so. Merges have been discussed and rejected in the past, yet this editor has twice gone against consensus and merged / redirected without agreement. Then they prodded, now they've AfDed - something of a POV it would seem. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Shanghai bund is not around oil tank, but it is water containment of Huangpu River. If you have any sources to say the articles are quite distinct then please add them to the lead section of this article which is very small section at present. Also, the dab page Bund says "Bund (Bunding) is also an English word deriving from the Urdu word band, which means embankment, levee or dam". Asided m plane (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true, yet irrelevant. Of course the modern engineering term "bunding" derives (in a linguistic and functional sense) from the older word "bund" for a river levee. However the concept described under the term bunding, and the scope of this article, are about very different concepts. Your call for deletion can seemingly only be supported by a claim that bunding of fuel tanks etc. has no independent existence outside of rivers - quite ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article. In my opinion, bunding is similar to, but different than a levee or dike, which is why I created an article rather than simply redirecting "bunding" to the levee article. As Andy Dingley said, bunding usually refers to barriers around tanks containing oil or some other liquid, such as water or diesel fuel. I do not dispute that the article could use some improvement, but I do not think that deletion or redirection is appropriate in this case. -- Kjkolb (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have contributed to the article and note its importance for storage tank safety. There have been several recent failures of bund walls, most noticeably at the Buncefield disaster. Peterlewis (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting material, simply because it could be merged, is senseless. Let's make a good faith attempt to merge the two, if a bund really is a type of levee. Otherwise, keep both. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbeleivable, "if a bund really(????) is a type of levee", nobody knows. The article is full of fact tag, and the editors are such that if I remove those fact tagged content they will accuse me of bad faith! Asided m plane (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your excessive and disruptive use of ((fact)) tags is a prime example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Feel free to make positive contributions, such as researching or adding the references you complain are not present. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to believe whatever you say after so many keep votes. But I have no regrets for fact tagging nor for listing for deletion. I dont waste my sweat to improve an article that I feel be deleted outright, rather my fact tagging effort will help the article's future. Bother less to point to any essay let alone a policy. Asided m plane (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has several sources, enough to prove both the validity of the term and its notability, therefore it's ineligible for deletion per poilicy. It does need more inline citations, as the over-abundance of fact tags shows. This is really a back-door attempt to merge the article (the likely outcome on a Deletion result) for the THIRD time by a user who refuses to take a consensus "no" for an answer (probably in good faith, though certainly ill-advised now). I respectfully suggest the user read and comply with WP:STICK, as the horse is smelling quite badly now. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to reply as you made personal comment. I tried merging, but the content is not sourced so not worth merging. No surprise article is indeed notable i didn't even say that in my nomination, is that the only criteria for deletion? I'm afraid you missed the whole point. Asided m plane (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm about to use it in the context of Mike Penning, the MP and former firefighter whose constituency suffered the Buncefield fire. Penning referenced bunding problems in Parliament. JRPG (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Civil Engineering the term 'Earth Bund' is used extensively in terms of construction, as a means of support. Often used when excavating for foundations, for the support of Formwork or, as stated, for the support of liquid containers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.102 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Academy of Tirana[edit]

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

Highly promotional and entirely unreferenced article on a school that hasn't yet opened up, and has not a single relevant hit to show for it. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from not being open, it's a non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic is not notable. Sandstein 06:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermen[edit]

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

The group does not exist. It has never released any music, and it has no significant or 3rd party references to support a claim of notability. It seems that the group "Nevermen" was an idea of Mike Patton that never got off the ground. Prod tag was removed without comment from an editor who may have a COI with the independent label associated with this non-group. Andy14and16 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Andy14and16 - Over the last month you have nominated Lex Records and almost every page linked from Lex for deletion. This is clearly not a constructive way to use prods. Below, (in bold) I have cut and pasted the explanation I left on the Nevermen talk page yesterday when you nominated Nevermen for deletion for the second or third time. Please check the Nevermen talk page.

I think that the explanation below covers your points on notability.

As far as the group not existing and being a project that Mike Patton abandoned, that is simply speculation. Please see the references that I added yesterday. The references include interviews in significant media with each member of the band discussing that the group exists and that they have recorded. The Mike Patton interview was dated May 2010, suggesting that it is a current project.

I notice that you removed two refs for not mentioning the project. One is an interview from January 2009 with TV On The Radio members in The Guardian (venerable UK national newspaper) which lists other projects they've mentioned their working on. It states "He also formed a "vocalist trio" with Mike Patton and Doseone. " That is worth including because it's an early independent mention in an important newspaper that lists the band members (before a name was even chosen). The other ref you removed was was a lengthy interview on Pitchfork titled 'Doseone Talks Collabs With Tunde and Mike Patton, Alan Moore, More'. It would be hard from the title alone to contend that it wasn't relevant to the Nevermen WP page.

I have removed the proposed deletion tag by Andy14and16 that read -

"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Non-notable rock band. Article does not cite reliable and independent sources.Band has not yet released any music. Delete as WP:NOTCRYSTAL"

The tag was removed after several further references were added to support the fact that the group exists, is notable and that they have recorded.

The fact that the group exists and are recording together is notable. This is evidenced by extensive coverage in major media sources including The Guardian and Pitchfork.com.

The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music) 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' state that notability requirements are met if the group "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." All three member of themselves are notable in their own right.

The forthcoming release of material by the Nevermen is a notable event. The recording of the music for the release is documented in various major media sources. In the WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines it states "Individual... expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." In the case of the forthcoming Nevermen release, preparation is in progress and speculation is well documented. Both preparation and speculation are referenced.

I hope that all your points are covered above. If not feel free to discuss. There are plenty of alternatives to deletion. I think it's clearly not appropriate at this stage.In general, I think you should read the Wikipedia:Notability (music), which gives plenty of examples of notability. Every page I have read that you have marked for notability fits the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoleum (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources referenced above and in the article feature the artists themselves seemingly speculating about the band. If the band itself is speculating about the existence of the band, I think it's safe to say that this is, you know, speculative. Delete until there's solid evidence that the band exists beyond merely being a great idea for a supergroup. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All three members are quoted in saying in separate interviews that the band exists and has recorded. Is it 'speculation' of existence if the members of the group are talking about it existing and having recorded? 'Speculation' implies a theory. Three independent first hand witnesses talking about their own work surely means that the group exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoleum (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about jamming together, yes, and one of them uses the phrase "the Nevermen." There's speculation about having an album out, at some point, maybe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't even an Allmusic entry. So it's an encyclopaedia article about a theoretical group? WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Savonneux (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a difference between 'theoretical' and things you haven't personally encountered. You probably haven't heard any of the bands work but that doesn't mean that it is merely a theory. In this case, the three band members attest that there is a band and that they have recorded and it's been reported through the media... Notable bands do not all have Allmusic pages - for example Atoms For Peace do not have an Allmusic page - ... The notability claim has clearly been rebuffed and that leaves the question of whether the band members, in interviews as recent as this month, are 'speculating' about the existence of a band and their work or whether they mean what they say... It doesn't make a huge difference if this is deleted now and re-instated in line with a release date of material, or merged with another artists page, or put into incubation Lexoleum (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Savonneux (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not supporting an argument by saying such-and-such a band has a WP entry and therefore this band must. I'm saying that an Allmusic page is not the definition of existence of a band. Maybe re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lexoleum (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant third party material comes to light. The citations provided very little information and most didn't even mention The Nevermen; instead they discuss collaborations between the artists. An alternative to deletion, then, could be to rename the article, perhaps something of the form "musical collaborations between X, Y, and Z". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Doseone and Mike Patton in referenced interviews say that the name of the group is the Nevemen.Lexoleum (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Unfortunately Lexoleum's comments are probably going to end up being "tldr" for most, but he's right about one thing - Andy14and16 seems to believe that Lex Records and all its artists are non-notable, and has been systematically prodding and tagging each one of them for deletion. Many of them have so far been kept. That having been said, this group hasn't yet released any material and may never; when and if we have a confirmed release date, or at least a confirmed body of work, I'd support a separate article. Until then, note of the collaboration can be noted on the artists' pages. Chubbles (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and all of Lexoleum (talk · contribs) edits are about that label but this is about the article and most of the references don't even mention this "group." One of the refenerences (wired number 8) looks like i was just pulled randomly off the internet.--Savonneux (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Savonneux, can you explain further what you mean about edits being about the label? Regarding refs: each reference appears at the end of a sentence and is relevant to that particular sentence. So with point 8 appears after the words "on the score for the Alan Moore audiobook 'Unearthing'" and then if you follow the link, it's to a Wired.com article about Stuart Braithwaite from Mogwai corroborating that Patton and Doseone are working together on the score. It reads "Brathwaite and crew join artists including Mike Patton, Godflesh’s Justin Broadrick, Doseone and Fog’s Andrew Broder Moore’s forthcoming multimedia project Unearthing..." That reference is one of three independent sources referencing that particular point. Seems pretty relevant to me. What's the objection? Lexoleum (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of your edits have to do with a company called "Lex Records". WP:COI isn't part of AFD though, is all I was saying. Yes it supports the sentence but saying it makes the actual group "Nevermen" notable is more than a stretch, it only supports that particular sentence which is only peripherally related, it would be a good source for "Unearthing," the word I'm going for here is trivial.--Savonneux (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the contributions do relate to Lex. Lexoleum is the user name for Lex Records' edits. The contributions are fact based, they are not contentious and everything is referenced. The reference from Wired.com is clearly not trivial in relation to the sentence or the paragraph to which it is attached. The paragraph is relevant to the group. I really can't see a problem with that reference. I think that both those objections are irrelevant to the discussion here about whether the Nevermen are a group and have recorded. Like I said before, it doesn't make a big difference if the article is put on ice. However, I don't think there is a problem with the facts or the references provided. Lexoleum (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not about whether they are a group or exist. No one is arguing that. It's about whether or not they are notable enough to warrant an entire article. There are very very very few bands/ensembles/groups who have no releases that get an article. Even unreleased albums by highly notable bands usually don't get an article until there is a track listing and a street date. People will get annoyed with this digression though :P if you want to talk about any ~~policy~~ guideline stuff leave me a message on my talk page.--Savonneux (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is specifically about whether they exist. The opening sentence arguing for deletion is "The group does not exist." Then ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb's argument is that they do not exist and are "speculative" and then your argument is that the group is "theoretical"... The group gets a pass based on the notability guidelines, see WP:BAND. This isn't a page about an album, it's a band stub, but it does pass the the simple test at WP:CRYSTALHAMMER that you reference. So, the page may be premature but I don't think the other arguments stand up... And I've only replied to policy guideline points that you have raised in arguments for deletion. I haven't engaged in a deletion discussion before - is it a bad thing to answer arguments on policy? Lexoleum (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify my above point, I meant to indicate that the band members' speculation is with regard to the band's status as a going, notable concern, not its existence. I can easily see how that was unclear! Clearly, something exists here. I would posit that their status as a going, notable concern is what is "theoretical." It's purely speculative. If Bono and the Edge were quoted in an interview saying "well hey there, we're cutting some awesome tracks for a new act we have called The Alwayswomen, it'll be great!" it doesn't automatically confer notability on a Wikipedia topic called "The Alwayswomen." They're speculating. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume that you used the word 'speculation' because I had used it, not because it fitted. It's not a good fit. In the interview with Patton (ref # 3) he states that Nevermen is the next project he plans to finish and it will be wrapped up this year. Ergo, it's a going concern :) Lexoleum (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in reliable sources. What I see are passing mentions and speculations. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an article on Pitchfork about it with 1.5K words just on the Nevermen, in addition to brief supporting coverage in other media, including confirmation in interviews from every member. Unless there is an unwritten guideline that there must be a release by a group before a notable group gets a page, I think it's a keep... 'Speculation' in this context means conjecture without evidence, or a guess - it doesn't fit :) Lexoleum (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unless I read a different article, the pitchfork interview was not "just on the Nevermen." There was a couple of questions about that, and it as on to other things. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is 4.5K words long. Around 1.5K words are on the Nevermen. The article is titled 'Doseone Talks Collabs With Tunde and Mike Patton, Alan Moore, More'. Lexoleum (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Sorry. I parsed your statement as saying that the article was 1.5k in size and was about solely about Nevermen. However, that doesn't change my stance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, you now agree that there is a significant piece of coverage from a reliable souce? And you are sticking with the same stance, that "Notability is established with significant coverage in reliable sources." Does that mean you are saying 'delete' or 'keep'? Lexoleum (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No. I do not agree that answering a couple of questions represents a significant pieve of coverage. It's more than a passing mention, and certainly is much better than the other references, but it still falls short of what would be enough to convince me that this meets notability. Thus my stance remaining unchanged. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite lengthy features will normally only publish a few set piece question and answers, the rest of the interview is normally summarized. It's clearly non-trivial coverage. Lexoleum (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I agree it is non-trivial. But this isn't a case of black or white. Two answers out of an interview falls short of the coverage I would need to see to establish a band that hasn't produced anything yet. When considering the nature, and amount of coverage, this simply isn't enough for me. Other editors may feel different, and will state so themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'll add another keep in on the grounds that almost everyone who expressed that the group 'doesn't exist' seems to have moved away from that position. At WP:BAND, at point 6, it states that notability can be established if the group contains two or more independently notable musicians. This group does. Lexoleum (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, I dispute your assertion regarding what other people are thinking. Re-reading this AfD does not in the slightest bit support your asertion that people are "moving away from that position." You have supplied evidence that you think ought to make people move away, but I haven't seen "almost everyone" in this AfD swoop in and change their minds. In fact, all I see is one person responding to your evidence and saying it doesn't change their mind. And you can count me as a second person explicitly stating that his mind is unchanged. It has been established that the group exists, removing part of the nominator's concern. But practically nothing has been done to address the rest of the concerns. Your attempt in response to my arguments above to disregard the spirit of my statements and respond to them in only the most literal possible read of my language wasn't exactly persuasive. Yes, technically a band member stating they are actively jamming makes them a "going concern." I note you quoted my phrase "going, notable concern" as "going concern," conveniently missing the word "notable." I still consider everything speculative until they actually produce or do something of note. All we have right now are comments from members of the band saying "yeah, we're totally jamming."
    Also, WP:BAND doesn't automatically solve an AfD. Please see also my hypothetical comments above regarding Bono and the Edge for why I don't think WP:BAND 6 applies at all in this caes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My comment was based Savonneux saying that 'no one is saying the group doesn't exist' and you backtracking on the statement that the band's existence was 'speculative'. Out of the three users who said that the band doesn't exist, two of them have subsequently changed their position. Therefore most people have moved away from the position that the band doesn't exist. However, I'm happy to accept that in the light of the facts, and the change of your position, that you hold the same sentiments :) ... Patton in the interview doesn't say "jamming", you are quoting yourself... As far as the nominator's other concerns: that the band has not released music; there are no third party references; and that it was "an idea of Mike Patton that never got off the ground". All those have been addressed above - at length... The Alwayswomen hypothetical wasn't useful to me and I'd be trying to ignore it. The biggest failing of that hypothetical example lies in the idea that people are 'speculating' (or guessing) when they are talking about things that they have done - without evidence to the contrary it would be bizarre to think that are 'speculating' (or guessing) about having recorded music together (are their memories impaired?)... Like I've said before, if there's a precedent for groups of notable individuals not having their own page before a release date is set, then I have no objection. The other arguments so far don't stand up though. Lexoleum (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would fully support userfication of this article. There is some likelihood that it will, at some point, become a notable topic. There has been some e-mail communication between me and Lex regarding this discussion (all very good faith, intelligent stuff) and I've suggested this to him as a solution that might satisfy everyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Clearly that's the right approach: the band aren't notable yet, but they may well be in the future and this article would be very useful to have as a basis for expansion. But since it doesn't belong in mainspace at present, userfication is the best way of achieving this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papen County[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional county from a tv show. all the 'refs' would seem to be to episodes. Hurry, before someone starts wikilinking all the stuff in bold and creating new non-articles on things such as the Papen Harbor Lighthouse. Jack Merridew 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article has been transwiki'd to wikia.com; http://annex.wikia.com/wiki/Papen_County —Jack Merridew 07:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per tag already on the page. Reasonable search term. Nature of the merge can be discussed on the talk page as outlined in the tag. No need for a deletion discussion to handle a merge. --Jayron32 04:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the tag, but don't see anything worth merging. I'd be fine with a redirect post-delete, assuming there's not a better claim to the name. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting before redirecting is just rude. - BalthCat (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with omitting the redirect, too. If a term is significant in whatever target, proper searching will find it. fwiw, I believe we've tons of inappropriate redirects about. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A used redirect is an appropriate redirect. Got any stats? - BalthCat (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I was referring to the appropriateness of targets. See Beumer and what it was until a few days ago, for example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly appropriate if you aren't aware of the other uses. Poor, sure, but appropriate. - BalthCat (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as creator. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pushing Daisies per nom. it has no inherit notability outside of being in a TV series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nb: I didn't advocate a merge. In a subsequent comment I specifically said I don't see anything worth merging. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided other than episodes of the television series itself. No out-of-universe perspective is included in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to series article. No sources could be found for this topic outside of the series itself... Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Thornton[edit]

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

Stand-up comedian with no verifiable claims of notability, self-created vanity article, a smattering of non-notable awards won. No evidence that this passes baseline notability standards as outlined at WP:N or WP:BIO. Jayron32 03:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may have created it himself, but his IMDb filmography details a person just notable enough for inclusion. A Google search for "Dave Thornton Australia" returns plenty of reliable-source profiles and reviews of comedy shows. Perhaps delete and recreate, since the current article is self created. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to "delete and recreate"... as now that it's here, it belongs to Wikipedia... and improvements have been ongoing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is salvagable. I just did a bit of cleaning up. I'll try to come back later to do some referencing. Evalpor (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more cleaning up, and added a number of references. This subject is obviously notable. The article can use some more tidying up, but I think it should pass notability at this point. Evalpor (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I appreciate the effort, but I see little in the way of "extensiveness" or "substantialness" in these references. In sum total, there looks to be about 15 sentances in existance in reliable sources which discuss him, and they all seem to be of the sort "Commedian Dave Thornton is appearing at Funny Bones on May 21" with little else. My wedding anouncement contained more biographical information about me than any of these do. One's name existing in print is never enough for WP:N-minimum standards. Many people have had their name in the newspaper a few dozen times in their lives, it doesn't mean that such is enough for a Wikipedia article to be built around. I don't see where ANY of the references contain any useful information about his life beyond "He exists" and "he has a job as a commedian." Existing and having an occupation aren't usually enough for minimum notability standards. --Jayron32 01:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh... his career meets WP:ENT and there's just enough to meet the WP:GNG... and naturally, and per policy, even the most mundane of information must be verified without the coverage in all reliable sources having to also all be "in depth". Luckily, enough is... and enough other of the less-than-substantial sources properly verify the notability in the further improved article. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per meeting WP:ENT and closing in on WP:GNG. Notability (and coverage) in Australia are notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very nicely done. The article now seems quite sturdy. Evalpor (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information now in the article shows this person is clearly notable. Dream Focus 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Work done since the last time I commented above has added sources which review the person's work and which discuss him in an in-depth manner. It is now clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. Thanks to everyone that worked to improve it; this is by far a better result than deletion would have been. Please keep adding sources and improving the article after this nomination gets closed. --Jayron32 15:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic stock rotational system[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this is a notable investment system. Google search for "dynamic stock rotational system" comes up with two results (this article, and another page that seems wholly irrelevant). Search for "Pizzuti Power" results in some bookselling sites and a lot of pages with random text strings. Search for "Stephen Pizzuti" is similarly unhelpful (84 "unique" results). ... discospinster _talk 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Seems like original research or something. Cannot find notability. — Timneu22 · talk 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of actual notability. "He is the inventor of DASP, yet to be productized." NawlinWiki (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sravan puttagunta[edit]

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

Seems to be Autobiographical. Will be impossible (or prohibitively difficult) to verify any information or establish notability as Google searches reveal no information on either the person or file format [54], [55] except for this article. Caleb Jon^talk 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Outside (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with only one link. An article search failed to bring up any other "The Man Outside" or similarly named articles. Airplaneman ✈ 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an editor has started to create The Man Outside (1967 film). However, the new article does not yet establish notability for its subject since IMDb merely proves that a film etc exists (and the Notes merely take us to the WP article about the reviewers rather than to any actual reviews). Also, the 1933 film and the 1972 British TV series might just be notable enough for independent articles (though, not from the links I have provided). I am waiting the completion of the new article and/or waiting to see if anyone can estabilsh notability for the other two article subjects before !Voting, therefore --Jubilee ♫clipman 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any intelligent person can see there are two movies, as well as a television series and a play, by this title. User:Airplaneman would have recognized that if he had observed the one-hour rule before tagging a page for suggested deletion. Airplaneman tagged that page only 12 minutes after I had begun to create it, at which time the page had only one of the four titles. In less than an hour it had all four titles.

In addition to vandalism, Wikipedia needs to have a policy on BUSYBODIES, which includes people who impatiently add suggested deletion tags in violation of the one-hour rule, or who add them to pages with the UnderConstruction tag. Whenever such a tag is added to a page that Wikipedia rules it will keep, a BUSYBODY demerit should be added to the tagger’s record. Two such demerits ought to bring the BUSYBODY a severe warning that any additional demerit will result in loss of editing privileges.

Why should I be obliged to waste my time defending the obvious legitimacy of a page that was tagged by a busybody who didn't have the decency to wait an hour (as required by Wikipedia policy) before tagging it?Aardvarkzz (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: No good reason for deletion, as far as I can see. While the film could be dealt with adequately with a hatnote in the play's article, it's clear that there are other art works with the same title that may merit articles in the future. I also agree with Aardvarkzz's sentiments regarding the pointless of the nomination in the first place. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the version as nominated could have been speedy-deleted and the nomination was not pointless, the current version (with the additional blue link) is a valid dab page. ("May merit articles is the future" means "may merit a disambiguation page in the future" too.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Augustine[edit]

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

Creator and IP repeatedly remove speedy deletion tags, violates WP:AB and WP:NN. Only one GNews hit and about 60 GHits (almost all social networking sites. GregJackP (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not meet notability guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A record-setting blueberry raker? Delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no indication of importance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy deletion tag has been removed twice by the author and twice by an anonymous editor. The IP has no edits apart from this article, and two of its three edits have been removing this tag. I think it is a good bet that this was the author of the article again. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in spite of the blueberry raking. First Light (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opus-dei: existence after religion[edit]

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

Much of the prose is copied from http://www.opus-dei.co.uk/, and it doesn't seem to be very notable anyway. —ems 2 4 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a clear WP:COPYVIO here, much of the text comes form the above website which has a clear copyright notice on it. Should this be speedied? Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may even be a promotional activity by the company, as the same piece was created today under the similar lemma Opus-Dei: Existence After Religion, also by a user (Pollux.rees (talk · contribs)) who registered only today, similar as the other article (True-grit (talk · contribs)). Interestingly, both versions/lemmas were started by using the <big>-switch for the whole piece of text. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dailyer Nebraskan[edit]

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

Non-notable "newspaper" lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Fail to establish WP:NOTABILITY. ttonyb (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't understand how a newspaper that gets 5,000 unique hits a month on its website and has a circulation 10,000 can not have notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Real world popularity is not the same as Wikipedia notability. in addition, circulation and Google hits are not part of notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After reading this and editing the page I do believe that we now are within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Simply making a statement without providing support for the statement does not help the reviewing admin decide the validity of the article. ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 5000 uniques a month? I've got blogs that get that in a day that I'd never dream of starting Wikipedia articles for--mainly due to lack of independent nontrivial coverage elsewhere. Heather (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page now contains several independent sources to verify the information provided. These sources show that several notable sources have independently provided information about the Dailyer Nebraskan. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, one minor article, one article, and a comment by one of the original founders does not appear to be non-trivial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the refs do not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added more sources to the article, and believe it passes notability at this time. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HT News does publish a "US Fed News", as their webpage states. Forgive me for not assuming good faith, but you have to admit that something like the person who nominated an article for deletion removing references during discussion looks highly suspect. I have responded in greater detail on your talk page, and hope that we can resolve this without any more animosity from either of us. Once again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, I see HT News does publish this - OMG, the Wikipedia article is not up to date. 8-) I also see how my edits could have been seen as a problem. Thanks for your further comments and I look forward to editing with you in the future. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Possible merge to article about the University. Edison (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University_of_Nebraska-Lincoln. Per nom, fails WP:N. This newspaper is probably only viewed by students,teachers, or alumni of the university. Traxs7 (Talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. • Freechild'sup? 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - arguably the Lincoln Star refs in particular get it over the line. I'd listen to contrary arguments though. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Veracity, verifiability, and NPOV maintained. Footnoted properly. Not selling a product. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My-e-Director 2012[edit]

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

A rather esoteric research and development project enabling end-users to select focal actors and points of interest within real-time broadcasted scenes. I am bringing it to AFD in the hope of getting an answer to my question: "does funding by the Seventh Framework Programme automatically make a project notable enough for Wikipedia?" I think the answer is a definite "no". No other evidence of notability is offered in the case of this project. Wikipedia is emphatically not a place for academics to promote their projects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with Seventh Framework, so I can't really judge the core question - is a Seventh Framework-funded program notable for being a Seventh Framework program? Depends on the coverage, I suppose - if getting this funding generates coverage, then I'd say maybe. In this case, I'm not seeing the coverage I expect, but I'm going to look about a bit more before placing a Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many 7th Framework Programme articles have been deleted in previous AfDs. There is a concerted effort to get these articles onto Wikipedia: http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before bringing an entry to the AFD, a careful check on the facts would help avoid any incorrect conclusions. How can a project in which major stakeholders involved in sport coverage (such as the Olympic games) participate be characterised as an "esoteric research"? First of all the use of the term esoteric is wrong. Esoteric derives from the Greek word eσωτερικό =esoteriko which means interior. Looking carefully at the description of the project, we can se that it is implemented by a European consortium of partners that have both expertise and interest in the promotion of research in personalised media delivery. Therefore, by no means we can characterise it as esoteric, nor can it be linked to a simple effort of academics to promote their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the project does or who its stakeholders are. All that matters is the coverage (or lack thereof) in independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there seems to be a lack of knowledge as regards the way this type of research projects operate. Support by companies is obligatory, so both own funding and business plans for exploitation of results are available. Furthermore, again there is a term that is used in a wrong way? How is the claim that "no independen secondary sources" justified? The sources of the project at a primary level are independed so the problem is at the secondary level? What is the impact of this? In any case, it seems that now the problem is reported to be different than the initially stated (esoteric research!). By the way, there are several entries in wikipedia that have by far a more limited scope and impact, but there is no problem there. What is the special conditions that apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on secondary sources defines them quite well. The sources must be independent of the people associated with the topic. As for articles that have a "far a more limited scope and impact", you are permitted to nominate them for deletion any time you wish. Abductive (reasoning) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this article quiet interesting but it lacks of technical details and references. If authors give some more details, I believe that it would be worth to stay in Wiki Pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platons (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to show notability (and notability is not inherited from supporters or funders. I will also point out that the discussion of the word "esoteric" here suffers from the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notbaility not even close to being established. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dryer ball[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Only source is this unreliable looking website. I removed some pointed text such as "the pseudo-scientific, unproven, purpose" and "Green Lane claims to have laboratory test results proving their effectiveness but fail to show it to anyone who asks to see it." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't think this is non-notable, and perhaps it is better to redirect to fabric softener. — Timneu22 · talk 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article suggested above. I think that the object is something like a laundry ball. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The dryer ball is related to the laundry ball in that they are non-chemical based products. But the dryer ball is a replacement for chemical fabric softeners. [56], [57], [58], and [59] demonstrate that these things are being covered by multiple reliable sources, and there are more news articles behind pay walls. Although they are meant to soften fabrics, I don't think a redirect would make any sense. A person landing on fabric softener would get an article about chemical fabric softeners with no mention of a dryer ball. A merge might make sense, but these things are so radically different that I think a separate article is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also noted in US patent D583519. The article notes news about the item. This is a unique object which people will try to learn about. Deleting this article will confuse anyone trying to learn what a dryer ball is. --Erik Garrison (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve. I have these at home and I haven't the slightest idea how they're meant to work. Either that or merge with fabric softener. Hairhorn (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(recomment) Redirect, this is probably laundry ball; no reason for separate articles. — Timneu22 · talk 13:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not a laundry ball. A laundry ball is for washing clothes and takes the place of chemical laundry detergents. A dryer ball is for fabric softening during drying clothes and would take the place of chemical fabric softeners. They are not the same thing. - Whpq (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources cited above by Whpq and seen at Google News Archive [60] (besides the cites which are just juxtaposition of the words). A product widely sold in stores, and claimed to be "green" about which readers might seek information in an encyclopedia. This is not fabric softener, which is a chemical product, and it is not a laundry ball. Edison (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The balls themselves appear to be notable apart from the court action, although the article makes no such claim, and no such sources are provided. GregorB (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources: [61] [62]. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Of Mice & Men (band). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second & Sebring[edit]

its references only lead to the music video. it doesn't state how the song is notable. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 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) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Of Mice & Men (band). It might be argued that a debut single of a (presumably) notable band is itself notable, but I think merging it would be the best way. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPiServer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have not found any significant coverage, only a whole lot of press releases. Haakon (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per CSD A7. No mention or evidence of notability as a corporation. Article appears to me to exist solely for the purpose of advertisement. --Pump me up 08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's clearly not speedy material--it's hardly promotional sounding and it's been around for over a year, and the previous AfD was a Keep. That said, I haven't seen any improvement, it's a stub without notability, and the previous AfD reasons to keep seem to have been proven wrong by time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You obviously haven't bothered to search google books. First hit: [63]. Doesn't look like a press release to me. I agree the article could use some expansion, but I'm no expert on this. The sad choice of Wikipedia today seems to: either someone with a wp:coi, who knows a lot about this, develops the article, and it gets deleted as g11, or it gets deleted because it's not sufficiently developed (citing independent sources etc.) Pcap ping 21:38, 7 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) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?? I added the ref Pcap found. That seems to be virtually the only reliable source though - agree google news produces a poor result. At least the WP article text is neutral! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Content Management System marketed by EPiServer AB. Absolutely nothing suggests that this particular product has any encyclopedic significance as opposed to hundreds of similar products. (Most of the other products in its category should not have separate articles either.) Merely being the subject of a subheading in a book about Pro scalable .NET 2.0 application designs (now there's a page-turner) does not confer encyclopedic significance on this run of the mill software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability or significance whatsoever. And, of course, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit. GregorB (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandale (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) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and Redirect~~ to article on director George Mihalka. The article lacks assertion of notability or sources showing any... and the common name makes searches difficult... but sources are out there... some in French... [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] So either this gets input perhaps from Canadian Wikipedians with an interest in older 'B' movies, or should get a merge and redirect to the director's article, as he has the notability the current article lacks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 7 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) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This low-budget movie actually attractde quite a lot of coverage in its time (working from memory). Working from Google , we have this entry in Guide to the cinema(s) of Canada. [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] from the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette which Google news seems to have a good archive of. From my own recollection, the Toronto Star also covered the film during its development and subsequent release but they don't appear in any of the searches I executed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq... with my thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Foust[edit]

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

A lot of information here but none of it really seems to meet any of the notability criteria. Most of the references given do not mention his name at all. Google search is mostly a list of social network sites. Some of the claims are dubious -- for example, Healing Hands World Outreach supposedly makes $150 million annually, but Google has never heard of it. ... discospinster _talk 03:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 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) 00:48, 7 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) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is rather obvious vanity piece, perhaps written by himself or one of his followers.Pcap ping 08:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that is both notable and verifiable by reliable sources. Some things seem downright bogus. For example, Sport Karate Magazine just published issue 100, yet the article references issue 576. A search for "prophetic records" foust -faust produced only the wikipedia page. None of the references given show notability of the subject--some don't even mention him. For all the schools listed, there's no indication he actually graduated from any of them--it appears that after 12 years of post-secondary education he's still attending community colleges. This appears to be a vanity page created by an SPA with a COI. Papaursa (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the subject's notability as a martial artist. Janggeom (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. Deleted as a copyvio --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton College Student Center[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to college. Wow, it doesn't even exist yet? It might warrant a sentence in the school's article. tedder (talk) 17:39, 13 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) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Stone[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) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 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) 00:48, 7 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) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Talwar[edit]

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

Nothing in the article indicates that the subject is particularly notable per WP:BIO. He is the CEO of a company and spoke at forums. First five pages of a Google search comes up with Facebook and LinkedIn entries, some articles about a restaurateur in Delhi (I don't think it's the same guy), a DJ (ditto), and I found one "Snapshot" of the company on Businessweek. Nothing in Google news. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First page of google search returned this - [77]. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 1 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) 00:47, 7 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) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No solid information has been found despite this AFD being open for a long time. The article Szzuk found seems to be a title but no article. tedder (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Rouse[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet notability criteria. The subject is a stand-up comedian who has had a bit part in a movie, has appeared on a reality show and a tv show which showcased lesser known comedians, and has opened for a big-name act on tour. I've found only one newspaper article that really goes into detail about him [78] and a few other articles which seem to be regurgitating his press bio when he's appearing in their town. He hasn't met the significant coverage in independent sources bar set by WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 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) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frumentius (Pope Joan)[edit]

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

A secondary character from a 19th-century romantic novel that doesn't have an article; no notability of his own. The novel is Emmanuel Rhoides' Papess Joanne, a fictional account of the supposed medieval female Pope named Joan, which an anonymous user has been touting as genuine history for the last year and a half. However, it's not, and the character Frumentius does not appear extensively in any version of the Pope Joan legend outside of this novel. This had been redirected to Pope Joan, but the parenthetical makes it an unlikely search target.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 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) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very strange to have an article on a character on a novel which does not have an article, and whose notability is not yet established. PatGallacher (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of treatment of this fictional character in reliable secondary sources. Deor (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the on;y reason the novel does not have an article is our ethnocentrism; the author is Greek; the novel is in Greek, and the novel has a long article with dozens of references in the Greek WP. [79], which calls it " one of the greatest Greek novels, " . Agreed we need a translation of that article more, but let's not throw out what we have. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the lengthy Greek article, this character is mentioned in passing, in a single sentence of the plot summary (with no indication of any source that deals with him); the Greek WP doesn't have a separate article about the character. Whether we need an article on the novel Pope Joan has nothing to do with the merits of this article. Deor (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't an AfD for the novel. It's an AfD for a person who the article initially implied was a historical person, but in reality is a secondary character from the novel. There is no possible way to expand this article, and there are no sources specifically about him. And there's no risk of throwing away what we have; we have an article on Emmanuel Rhoides, which discusses the novel.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the novel: cna't find sources on this and satisfied that the Greeks can't find it either. Sufficient to mention it in the plot summary of the novel. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. You can delete or you can change to a redirect, but you can't do both. It does not make much sense to redirect to the novel since it doesn't have an article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We delete and redirect all the time... but the lack of article on the novel is confusing... i guess no redirect makes sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or maybe, you should ask the author of the article to post a G7 and finish the matter. One should notice however that originally, Frumentius (Pope Joan) had been a live link inside the Pope Joan article but an editor here deleted it three times in the past. 94.71.203.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Ogolobyak[edit]

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

Subject is only known from this one news story. Undue weight, article not justified, per WP:BLP1E, and WP:ONEVENT. œ ^™ 08:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEVENT. --DonaldDuck (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crappy writing and footnoting, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. However, an article on the event itself may or may not be notable. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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