< 13 October	15 October >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfood McSpade[edit]

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

I don't think this character is notable on her own. I think a brief mention of her and the surrounding controversy in one of the other Crumb-related articles would suffice. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by far enough sources, Sadads (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content is well-sourced and encyclopedic, demonstrating the literary and social significances and controversies regarding the character, and there would be no basis for cutting it down to a "brief mention". I don't see any existing article that would be an appropriate merger target for this content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a ton of offline sources asserted, more than seem reasonable to my suspicious mind. Can anyone verify that any of these exist and mention this character? Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that yourself by following the links to Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Controversial character with a substantial coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Sudiro[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. no indepth coverage [1]. her Indonesian and Malay WP articles are also poorly referenced. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources, but none are really about the subject, as opposed to containing incidential mentions of her.--Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – for what it’s worth, Spotify has no tracks for Julie Sudiro – which surprised me, because they do have all sorts of obscure stuff on there… — Hebrides (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep she shows up in google search we just need translator Aisha9152 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are they? My Malay is good enough to know whether something is significant coverage and none of the malay references in gnews cut it. It's all trivial mentions like the English ones. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I show up in Google searches, extensively; I've done some professional writing in my time. That still doesn't mean the searches produce reliable sources, or that they are more than incidental mentions, and that's the case here. Ravenswing 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack page with major POV issues that is a biography of a living person. The subject clearly fails the relevant guideline, being a local politician. Overwhelming consensus is for speedy deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Levenson (politician)[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. BLP has major WP:NPOV issues and focuses only on the candidate's negative aspects. This is unacceptable for a BLP. SnottyWong ^babble 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete' Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Potential concerns about WP:ATP move this to a strong statement. Ray^Talk 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10. I agree with the nom and Ray that this one has major BLP concerns. Location (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LegalMatch[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is spam and not notable. It includes information that does not accurately portray the company and exists only to disparage the subject. Johnjones888 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Johnjones888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the company is clearly notable as the references indicate. Yes, as the nominator pointed out, this article was created as a spam article, but then the company's PR plans for Wikipedia backfired when the article was de-fluffed and expanded to include material on the founder's felony conviction. A quick skim of the long talk page, Talk:LegalMatch, will give a sense of the challenges in keeping the article neutral. A number of single purpose accounts have been involved with this article and I expect we'll see more at this AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Agreed with AB. There are certainly enough good secondary sources to make this company notable. Blehfu (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. While the sources in the article itself are weak, Scholar hits would appear to contain significant coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam and not notable.--Davidwiz (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources available (in the article and in google scholar as Smerdis points out) in my opinion constitute a significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckinghamshire Leisure Leagues[edit]

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

Article about a local leisure sport league fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local amateur social/kickabout league, not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls a long way short of being notable. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable league. Giant Snowman 11:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvavijnanakosam[edit]

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

Notability not asserted.
Poorly sourced.
Very short for a topic that is said to be notable.
google says not much reliable third party coverage.
absolutely no back links to article. Thorncrag 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn per improvements made by Phil Bridger—Thank you Phil! Thorncrag 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm pretty sure that this is the Malayalam name for the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which is clearly notable. I know we have one or two AfD regulars who can make sense of Dravidian languages so I'll wait for confirmation of that before commenting further. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone who has knowledge of the subject would care to expand the article so that it's more than a basic tagline, I would surely withdraw the nomination. But the article has existed for over a week now with no improvement, save for the one reference you added today, ostensibly only invoked due to my speedy tagging. This combined with everything else makes it at least seem to call into question its notability. Thorncrag 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a short article is not a reason for deletion. Sarvavijnanakosam is an encyclopedia in Malayalam published by the Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala. "Sarvavijnanakosam" in Malayalam literally means encyclopedia. For a two-line stub like this the source provided is just sufficient. Thanks to Phil Bridger for declining speedy! Salih (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thorncrag is too haste to delete things on areas where he/she has no expertise. The notability is asserted as the most important encyclopedia in the Malayalam language. The information is sufficient for a stub. It provides an "authoritative" source, the government of India. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you not stubified it? And perhaps you could clarify or show me which guideline specifies how fast is too hasty for proposing deletion? Please consider very carefully what you are implying. You are implying that people who don't know what an article is about should not touch them, even though Wikipedia should be written for a general audience and at least try to be relevant to any reader. You can't make it incumbent upon editors who do not have knowledge of the topic to themselves improve the article. Thorncrag 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very, very few links to it on google, doesn't seem notable (Per Thorncrag) Pilif12p : Yo 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Google hits would you expect to find for a Malayalam name written in the Roman alphabet? this confirms that the English name for this is Malayalam Encyclopaedia, for which the searches that I linked above, especially the Google Books search, find plenty of sources. If you want to search for the Malayalam name then you need to do it in the Malayalam script, which looks very pretty but I can't make head nor tail of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why doesn't the article make this clear yet? Thorncrag 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly because, like over 3 million other articles, this article is not yet complete, secondly because I have only just found the source that confirms that Sarvavijnanakosam and the Malayalam Encyclopaedia are the same thing, and thirdly because I don't have the time to improve this article when I am constantly having to defend its existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khadafi Dub[edit]

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

The article appears to fail the guidelines of WP:NMUSIC. There are no independent references in the current article to address notability and an independent search on GNews and GBooks shows nothing to demonstrate significant impact. General searches show promotional matches of the type one would expect of an MC and performer. PROD previously raised and removed but without a clear rationale or with any prospect of immediate improvement, so raising for wider discussion of notability. Fæ (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable, single author/editor, fails wp:npov and wp:blp - not even wp:band. Ding 'em. --CompRhetoric (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are extremely questionable, mainly self published sources. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Richard Barker[edit]

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

Non-notable author per WP:CREATIVE; references given are mainly from WP:Primary sources; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails on notability. I can find no mention on Google apart from the article itself and Facebook.Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Every reference or citation checks out. Google Barker's name with titles mentioned or check the links / citations provided. He's worked with many notable people; he has published books by notable people; he has written articles for notable organisations; and his work has been praised by notable people. (Curemaniac (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I checked both Google scholar and books, and found Nothing. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing on the internet about this author except this page.IamTheRon (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)— IamTheRon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Ahem - No such person as "IamTheRon" - identity created purely out of spite?

http://grimreviews.blogspot.com/2010/08/tenebrous-tales-promotional-video.html http://davidandrewriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/melancholy-haunting-of-nicholas-parkes.html http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/Biblio.html (Scroll down) http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2001/s37.htm#A1318 (Barker is Jonathan Harker) NB. Barker's Weirdly Supernatural journal featured the only short stories ever written or published by Glen Cavaliero and Peter Haining. http://freepages.pavilion.net/tartarus/gc1.htm#contributions (Curemaniac (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ahem2 - No such person as "Curemaniac" - identity created by Barker himself to promote his vanity press activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.254.112 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Peter van Uhm. Non-admin close because the original author boldly already performed the work days ago and there have been no objections. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis van Uhm[edit]

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

The routine death of a soldier who was not notable for anything other than being the son of a military commander. TM 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Peter van Uhm. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Peter van Uhm.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep: I am the original creator of the article. Some background here: this article arose at the time because another editor put the contents into the article on Peter van Uhm in such a way that it overran that article and no good way occurred at the time to integrate the information properly (that may be possible now, since the article on General van Uhm has more weight of its own). Personally I would favor a merge to Peter van Uhm if somebody can do it neatly and without unbalancing that article. -- BenTels (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: After a review, I have just performed a merge of Dennis van Uhm to Peter van Uhm. Needless to say, I now feel we should keep the resulting redirect. ;-) -- BenTels (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Peter van Uhm: no independant notability per WP:SOLDIER. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per above. Unfortunately I don't see independent notability, but it seems like a valid search term so redirecting to the father's article make sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Covington[edit]

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

Having looked for sources under both names, I do not see sufficient evidence of notability under WP:PROF or other guidelines. Prod was declined because no reason was given, but I think deletion is the right outcome here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I see no notability. Dawn Covington has only a minor impact and should not be in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT Spaceysrockets (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spaceysrockets (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Joehazelton. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG. Like the nominator, I can't find anything in Google news about her under either name, and the only properly sourced factoid in the article is that she wrote an essay. That's not enough, and the fact that some other authors of essays in the same book are notable is irrelevant per WP:INHERITED. She also doesn't appear to come close to passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Ludes[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. The references currently on the page are either not independent or not significant, I can't seem to find anything that is much better. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient coverage in sources to warrant an article. He certainly fails PROF and I don't see support for a different guideline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:GNG is a more appropriate standard than WP:PROF but I can't find the independent coverage of him in reliable sources that would be needed to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Academic is often sourced in niche publications in a niche field. Additional sources should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Securepubdialogue (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — Securepubdialogue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – per David Eppstein's comments. The article was created by the SPA Securepubdialogue, whose user name sounds a lot like the name of Ludes's think tank. Runs a bit too close to WP:SOAPBOX for my liking. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) at 12:09, 15 October 2010 per G2. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hariram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same article as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hariram snow plough Talktome^(Intelati) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely made up vanity nonsense. Beach drifter (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-g1 patent nonsense --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hariram snow plough[edit]

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

This article has no references, and I can't see how it would be notable. Talktome^(Intelati) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, seems like I've heard of this idea a few times before with different elements. Beach drifter (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~db-g1~~ patent nonsense --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G1 doesn't apply to hoaxes, it applies to literal nonsense. Looks hoaxy to me, the "further reading" section has a wildly unclear relationship to the content of the entry. Delete as hoax/unverifiable unless coherent sources turn up. Hairhorn (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --CompRhetoric (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of good refs. The Interior (Talk) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Cynthia Moss's book exists, as I don't doubt do the others. I am always wary of citations to books only. I am especially wary of one like "Mitochondrial cytochrome b of the lyakhov mammoth (proboscidea, mammalia): New data and phylogenetic analyses of elephantidae", which is about genetic material in the cells found in "a 49000-year-old Siberian individual" (quoted from http://regis.cubedeglace.com/http://regis.cubedeglace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/debruyne_et_al_20031.pdf ) and refers to a Russian mammoth, not Indian elephants. Looks good, though, doesn't it? Peridon (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and recommendation If you have not already done so, please read "The Blindmen and the Elephant". I'd forgotten that one.... Peridon (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. There are absolutely no sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BULLSHIT: Many elephants died later on as a result of the extreme shock of having their bodies fired out like gunshots with no prior warning what-so-ever while peacefully eating, mating, or during some other activity in their life-cycle. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire hockey[edit]

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

This article's been around for a while, but I can't see the notability. We generally require that teams be at least at a semi-pro level in order to be included; this looks like it's more like a rec league sort of deal. As such, it's likely to be a lot of primary sourced material which cannot be verified through notable reliable sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the lack of references and lack of Google results make this a Delete.--Talktome^(Intelati) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and it really doesn't help that the article is mostly just a big unsourced list of members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Göbekli Tepe script[edit]

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

WP:OR. There is no Gobekli Tepe script, the site is far too old for the carvings to be glyphs of any sort - therefore no academic sources mention the possibility. The only source cited is a self-reference to the website (http://decipherquarterly.piczo.com/?g=1) of the article's main contributor, S. M. Sullivan. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete the article as OR, do so, but there is no basis in fact for your statement that writing could not have existed in 11,500 BC.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you created the article, if there are published sources asserting what you wrote, by all means let's have them. Otherwise, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I say this as the most fervent of inclusionist editors.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: based on nominating statement. At best, this hypothesis is under investigation by the article creator, see [2] and [3], but until its been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it should not have a separate article (or coverage elsewhere on wikipedia).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is claimed that Göbekli Tepe script refers to the abstract symbols which were engraved on stone objects. The author doesn’t mention writing. So the article may continue. But if desired, the title may be moved to Göbekli Tepe symbols, and the author may avoid using the word Glyph.-- Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't change the fact that it is OR. No reliable source mentions abstract glyphs, pictograms or symbols at Gobekli Tepe. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Göbekli Tepe. Takabeg (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing supported by sourcing to merge, to be honest. Note this fascinating story in Smithsonian magazine about Gobleki Tepe[4], where there is some discussion of the symbols, and the lead researcher says ""We're 6,000 years before the invention of writing here." The current substance of this article is: "The signs have an obvious horizontal orientation, on one notable example, they are engraved in a raised horizontal low-relief band across the base of a T-shaped pillar which also features an image of a fox cradled in attenuated human arms. Symbols include right and left parens, a hadron (capital H-shaped glyph), a capital I-shaped glyph, a trident, an undulating vertical line, and a capital U-shaped glyph." Even these descriptions need sourcing. The claim of an "obvious horizontal orientation" appears to be part of the article creator's claim that it looks like script.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research. As Milowent says, there is nothing supported by sourcing to merge. I'm disturbed by the idea of an editor creating an article based on their self-published website, as it could be considered an attempt to publicise the website. Note that I do not think that is the case here, but this is one of the reasons we have WP:COI. And of course WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The site clearly proposes that this is a script, without any evidence, and the WP article implies it's writing in the text, in addition to claiming it is in the title. The symbols may be notable for the Göbekli Tepe article, but yeah, nothing here would be worth merging. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Poetry Associations[edit]

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

No evidence of notability — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does this even really exist? Google shows a startlingly low number of hits (19, specifically), and most of those are Wikipedia mirrors. That's shocking for a supposedly international organisation, you'd think at a bare minimum it would show up in directories and such if it were real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable organisation without significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find any reliable source through google search which can be placed as notable.--Poet009 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak consensus to keep. OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil clown[edit]

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

Unsourced original research essay about "evil clowns". Fear of clowns is already covered in coulrophobia, and any noteworthy examples of evil clowns in fiction are covered in the articles discussing those works (i.e., It (novel), Joker (comics), Killer Klowns from Outer Space, etc.). Sottolacqua (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article isn't about coulrophobia, but the antithesis of a regular clown, and the culture surrounding it. Most of the articles featuring evil clowns don't mention the reasoning or thoughts behind such a character - they just "are". a_man_alone (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few lines to coulrophobia. This is an unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that article's an equally dubious trivia dump. Anybody want to get serious on the topic? Carrite (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article could probably be turned into a List of evil clowns without too much adjustment, by winding back to this revision. The Mark Dery reference is very sound looking and the claimed book checks out at amazon. It appears to be a long-standing popular culture meme. I lean towards keep and listify, retaining much of the existing text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if anything, this is a much better treatment of a common fictional topic than the dreaded "list of evil clowns in popular culture" turd it might have been. The Mark Dery source looks solid and the article could use a bit of expansion and work, but the core of it is good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm surprising myself by saying this, but this article is actually quite good. The subject is both distinct from coulrophobia and well-cited. It seems clear that the notion of evil clowns is not some bit of original research, nor is this article a disguised list. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a disguised list until I removed 7k of crap last week. As to the rest of your rationale, I can't see how anyone would think that. There are only a few sentences of prose and it is just a disjointed chain of factoids and appearances that is seemingly based entirely on single portion of a single pop culture book. It's also not clear why you would assert that the article is well-cited when it in fact contains no cites. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing such a good job cleaning it up. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious original research. Magnet for triviacruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject as a stock character just like the Evil twin and the Mad scientist. Could use some improvement, like history when the evil clown first became a cultural meme. The 70's? Hepcat65 (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) at 02:49, 15 October 2010 per G3(blatant hoax or misinformation). (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozamil Ahmad[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Given the complete lack of verifiable sources, I strongly suspect this is a hoax article. I find it difficult to believe that there would be absolutely nothing on the web about this person if the claims made in the article were true. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax. Previous contributions by this person, including Juth Nean and Juthiasm, have been hoaxes, for starters. The first cited book, purportedly published by the OUP, is not in the OUP's WWW catalogue. The other book citations are just smokescreens. The article is plainly rubbish on its face, too. Camels were not first domesticated in the 16th century. That's off by about four thousand years, by most estimates. And the correct name to drop in the early study of the comparative anatomy of camels is Luigi Lombardini, who published Ricerche sui Cammelli in 1879. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, the image is not of the subject, history of the editor all points to this being a hoax. SQGibbon (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Corona SDO[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)

Tried to merge and redirect to Solar Dynamics Observatory, but it was rejected by the author. Ultimately this is a non-notable thing that doesn't have reliable sources to establish notability via WP:GNG. It's a cute little article that belongs on sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov but is not encyclopedic or noteworthy to non-SDO folks. tedder (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on gnews, gbooks, gscholar and only social media on google itself. Does not seem to meet any notability guidelines. Merge will just introduce unsourced information the SDO article. Yoenit (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in reliable sources, thus mon-notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Corona SDO is still a new EPO (Education and Public Outreach) tool. It is noteworthy to non-SDO folks since we use Camilla as a tool to get young adults attention, use her when we got into class rooms and during science fair and space exhibits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - two third party sources have been added. One on NASA.gov and one on Thinkgeek.com. More to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I applaud your efforts those sources are not enough to support the article. Both mention Camilla once and you can only use them to support the very first sentence (that camilla is the official mascot and a chicken). This is not significant coverage. Also, the NASA source is not third party, SDO is part of NASA. Thinkgeek.com is a blog and probably does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, but even if it does you are gonna need more than that single mention to meet the notability criteria. Yoenit (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ If Wiki allows sport mascots to have their own articles, then it should allow science mission mascots too. Sports mascots are mostly for advertising/financial gain purposes. This NASA science mascot is actively used for Education and Public Outreach. Recent example; Camilla visited World Space Week in Nigeria in early October 2010 and participated in class room activities at an orphan kids school. There is no financial gain, but rather educational awareness is being promoted and sought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck duplicate vote. tedder (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ As Wikipedia says "Ignore all Rules" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ; This article at a minimum maintains, if not improves, Wikipedia. Additional references have been listed. There will be more after NASA's STS-133 Space Shuttle launch, early November 2010. Camilla will be part of the event and media outlets will cover her participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck duplicate vote. tedder (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 21 update; additional reliable source added (Stanford University, Solar Center). Additional sources in works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - this character although fictional is a valuable science outreach in the NASA branch. Deserves to be on Wikipedia even though it might not be viewed by some as important entry. It's probably one of the most ingenious tools created recently by NASA to help gather interest in science among young generation and what's even more important - it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.61.66 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Why not start a Facebook page for her? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- There is already a Facebook page. Wiki doesn't appear to be social media so one doesn't exchange the other. People who want to know who Camilla Corona SDO is, should have a way of finding information. You cannot determine what is notable or not since every time one tries to learn something about somebody/something, it becomes notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Facebook page suffices then. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- - What's your rationale? Not everyone is on Facebook. So how can others learn about this? Sports Mascots are ok, why not Science Mission Mascots? Rationales please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not DeleteCamilla Corona is not just some mascot to be deleted. She is a real rubber chicken who has inspired thousands to learn more about America's Space Program. While it started with the Solar Dynamics Observatory, she now shares information about the people of NASA besides other NASA programs. Camilla has a personality. And because she is a rubber chicken who has a personality (and her own fashion designer who lives in Missouri), people find her engaging and fun and thus tune in to see what more she has to share and what they can learn about space (even if they weren't interested in space before). Yes, Camilla has a Facebook account and a Twitter account. But, since both platforms are for social media and an instant exchange in the here and now there lacks a concise place online to go and learn all about Camilla. Recently Camilla visited the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas for astrochick training as her dream is to fly in space. While at JSC for 3 weeks she not only met with many astronauts, had training in the simulators, and flew on the infamous vomit comet (sharing about the work that is done at JSC and highlighting the people and the jobs to inspire others to reach for their dreams). The highlight of her visit from the perspective of how much can a rubber chicken get away with was when The Boeing Company in Houston, TX who hadn't heard of Camilla embraced her and her educational outreach mission. They invited her to meet their engineers, managers, and vice-presidents of both the space station program and the new commercial spacecraft vehicle. Camilla was invited to sit in the spacecraft mockup at Boeing, something only astronauts had done for the first time the week before. Boeing even took the time to write an internal news story (which is posted here: http://camilla-corona-sdo.blogspot.com/2010/10/camilla-in-news-boeing-article.html) about her because she made such an impact. The point is - Camilla is changing how we share and learn and she makes it FUN! It doesn't matter if your 8, 18, 38, or 68 - everyone who meets Camilla is excited about how she makes a difference in the world educating people about the importance of space in our lives. Why have a Wiki page? That answer is simple. So people can find her and learn more about her. The Boeing photographer who was assigned to take pictures of Camilla and the executives had never heard about her and couldn't easily find information about her. The photographer simply wanted to know who Camilla was. This wiki page has started this off perfect! Yes, it needs to grow, and it will as Camilla's outreach efforts grow. Not only does Camilla teach others about space exploration, she is teaching us how to successfully use social media for education, how to hand off a rubber chicken from NASA center to NASA center with teamwork and dedication from employees who do this on their own time to share their passion with her followers. Camilla will also teach us about the people who follow her and why they follow thus closing the circle and changing the dynamic of the interactions that take place on Facebook, Twitter, and in real life (as Camilla does make many appearances in public and was recently (or maybe still is) in Nigeria for World Space Week.) So...with all of that I hope that the people at Wiki have the foresight to see what a game-changer Camilla is for NASA and for social media and to document this amazing capability and accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.159.21 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DO NOT DELETEI have met Camilla. The idea of her is an incredible education tool. I have personally seen her involve all ages, tots to teens to those not counting anymore. She teaches all education levels and is a great way to make new friends. If her Wiki goes away, it will be one less way for her to outreach and open our world to communication and space education. She is inspiring and a great asset to education. I am not connected to the space community and have learned a great deal from her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniakay (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note essentially all the do not delete votes are from single-purpose accounts. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, all the one from romeoch are mine (creator of the page) and added after doing more research on the topic. The others, as you can see by the IPs, are not from the creators. In order to make it easier, I moved all my comments next to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.103.162 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note the IP above is Romeoch) I'd guess the votes are coming from mentions on Camilla's twitter and facebook feeds. Facebook, for example, says "Wikepedia [sic] wants to delete my article due to the fact that they don't seem to have enough reliable sources stating that I am for real. " Unfortunately deletion is not a vote, SPAs (with poor arguments) don't cast much weight in deletion discussions, and the issue isn't reality- it's notability (encyclopedic quality). tedder (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't use Wiki so have never had a need to come to these pages or comment. However, when I found out that Wiki wants to delete Camill'a wiki page I was moved to instantly make the above (very long) do not delete comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.159.21 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page would appear to be about astronauts who adopted a rubber chicken as a mascot. It would appear that rubber chickens may beat garden gnomes in the race to outer space, but I don't see the sources given here as the sort of reliable sources that would render this rubber chicken mascot an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article states, it is NASA's SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) mission mascot, adopted by members of the team to use it as an education and public outreach tool. The story line is for Camilla to travel to space to visit her friend, Little SDO (the spacecraft). Part of making this so attractive is that there is a real story line behind it. Several reliable sources (from NASA to Thinkgeek) have been listed and further sources are being put together. Again, if sport mascots can be listed, no reason why science mission mascots with educational tasks/duties can't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romeoch, I'd suggest reading WP:GNG thoroughly. Aside from "what about article X" being a poor argument, the reason some sports mascots qualify for their own article is because they have reliable and verifiable sources. That means coverage by independent sources, such as newspapers, books, and (best of all, though rarely for mascots) scholarly articles. Poor sources would be NASA and SDO's website (because SDO has a clear conflict of interest in wanting coverage of this), press releases, blogs (thinkgeek) and other self-published websites, and so on. Further, it's important to have a depth of coverage as WP:GNG says. So a mention on a blog doesn't qualify, even if it was more reliable than a blog- that's the equivalent of a band being notable because of a gig listing. Wikipedia is not a place for all information on the planet. tedder (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, thank you! This has been the best argument so far with the most information to understand the issue at hand. Boeing will be releasing an article about Camilla and her purpose externally within the next couple of weeks and Stanford University will be doing an introduction on the Solar Center website. Both should be considered reliable sources. The fact that organizations close to NASA, the Space Program or Solar Physics are reporting should not be held against this article (i.e. NASA & SDO have a conflict but other organization, while using NASA SDO data, should not). One can argue that a sports team has a conflict of interest as well with its mascot and mascots, as you pointed out, rarely have a book or scholarly articles written about them. So it does become a fine line, especially when trying to to create a new program (let's call Camilla Corona SDO an educational program within the scope of Education and Public Outreach). At an early stage there is not all that much available (certainly no book will ever be written about Camilla Corona). But in order to provide the public with information, outside of social media, an article should be considered when the purpose of the character within the article is education and outreach, helping improve the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) knowledge of US students (and even abroad). It's almost like what came first... the chicken or the egg. My point is, deleting this page because the believe is that this is "non notable" or "nonworthy" is hard to justify. Not following guidelines is appropriate. As you can see we are working on bringing this into as good of compliance as possible. Deleting it would be a mistake, even at this current stage. Clearly, it's not just a pet/mascot/show trophy - it's an active tool used, taken to schools, to fairs, to space exhibits to capture the attention, spark the imagination. Thus the elaborate story of Camilla and Little SDO, their interaction with each other to share sun and space related information and Camilla's wish to someday fly to space. All part of a story line we can use to educate along the way. If NASA can do the out-of-the-box thinking, I am sure Wikipedia can too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, so don't try to use it as one. Once those articles come out (and if they provide significant coverage instead of a mere mention) you are can always recreate the page. It can be stored in the incubator until then. Yoenit (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Camilla wiki page isn't self promoting the rubber chicken, it's talking about who she is and how she changes the lives of people. The wiki page allows a concise background of how she is changing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education and outreach. Flat Stanley has a wiki page and um, that's a piece of paper. I would suggest linking articles to how STEM is conducted and the issues with reaching K-12 students and getting them interested in STEM subjects. The U.S. is in a serious decline of STEM professionals and will lead to the U.S. losing it's technological advantage without finding the right mechanisms to reach and excite students. In Aerospace for example, those 50 and over far outnumber the number of people in their 20s-40s working in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.159.21 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting the interests of particular nation-states. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- It doesn't do that. It's like saying Donald Duck promotes Disney Company or Batman - DC Comics. What Camilla does is helping young generation to learn science in a new and funny way, regardless of nation, as any kid with an access to internet can ask her a question and I've seen them do just that. She's also becoming a popular symbol in space community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.73.192 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Camilla Corona, in addition to being the Solar Dynamics Observatory's mascot, is an important figure in the "open space" movement. I know blogs aren't technically considered "notable", but in a field where blogs are your news source, I feel they need to be given slightly more weight than normal. Camilla has been plugged by SolarIMG and openNASA, and has served an important role on Twitter in educating thousands of people about our Sun. I also want to point out that this is NOT a single-purpose account -- I've been around on Wikipedia for over three years, just not incredibly active. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. Trvsdrlng (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more then welcome to add your views to this discussion. ~~I did notice you have no previous experience with article deletion.~~ Mind if I ask what made you decide to comment in this case? With respect to your argument, whether a blog is notable is not important, it has to be a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. First of all, I don't know what your basis is for "no previous experience" is: I've commented on a few AfDs, but haven't been directly involved in any. Take that for what you will. Secondly, though I saw the notice about deletion on Camilla's Twitter feed, I'd been to this article a few times before that -- I'm a bit of a space geek. :) I commented because I think Camilla's mission of education about the solar part of our solar system is notable, as no other mascots exist for similar NASA programs. Thirdly, shouldn't WP:SPS apply in this case, so that anything published by NASA about Camilla would be considered a reliable source? If so, then I'd imagine that this Google search might turn up something relevant. Trvsdrlng (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes, my bad about the no previous experience. I jumped to a conclusion because you used "Do not Delete", instead of the standard "keep". Now, with regards to your third point: In order to demonstrate that Camilla is notable independent reliable sources are required. Also, if you look at the actual results of that google search you find only one mention of Camilla the mascot, which is already in the article. Everything else seems to be about Camilla the astroid and people called Camilla. Why should wikipedia have a page when NASA itself can't even be bothered to make a homepage for her? Yoenit (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yoenit, Tedder informed us that any NASA or SDO reference would be a conflict of interest. So the argument why NASA does or does not have, or intent to have a page specifically for Camilla, should not have any merit. If there was one, it's wouldn't be an independent source anyway. I do understand all your points, including the no-self promotion. I will double check that Camilla's article is written in a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeoch (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Sărdescu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radu Sardescu

Articles for deletion/Radu Sărdescu (2nd nomination)

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. The article's only source confimrms that he has never played in Liga I. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same vote as last AfD because there is still no evidence he has played in the Romanian first division and it's not clear the article would pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. How on earth was this kept in the last AfD?!? J Mo 101 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't think he's played in a fully-pro League, so fails WP:ATHLETE; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: his team profile confirms he has only played in the second division which isn't listed as a fully professional league, so he doesn't meet the notability guideline for footballers and there's no evidence he meets general notability guidelines. Bettia (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence to suggest that he has played in a fully professional league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx 335[edit]

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

This article describes an individual aircraft. There is not significant coverage of this aircraft as a topic in itself, in secondary sources. WP:Notability (aircraft) suggests that "an individual aircraft is almost certainly not notable unless it has been at least one of the following: 1. The major subject of a reliable book or monograph, 2. The major subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network, 3. The subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the aircraft's builder, manufacturer, owner, or operator, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." This aircraft does not meet these requirements. Almost all of the content of the article is already adequately covered at HMS Cardiff (D108) and Christopher Clayton. Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is probably correct, however these articles do not cover the aircraft's Gulf War service, only the Falklands War service. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Wikicopter but I have to agree that there is nothing to establish any sort of individual notability here, and that's reflected in the sources. I'd suggest that any Gulf War material is put into the relevant section in 829 NAS. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now merged the relevant info into 829 Naval Air Squadron as suggested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there's nothing to establish that this helicopter is individually notable Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content per Ranger Steve's suggestion, then Delete due to a lack of independant notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lacking references and notability. Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riva Philip, Kolath Tholoor[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of living person. The reference links present in the article conveys nothing in terms of notability. Mathew Joy (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Next time please use WP:BLPPROD instead of normal prod for unreferenced BLP's recently created. An IP actually added it, but apparently nobody caught it being removed. Unless references are added this should be deleted. (note, those external links do not count as references). Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unclear notability (entry is vague) and no sources. Creator is an SPA promoting this name across several entries. Hairhorn (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. The creater could well be a sock of Rivatphil. Salih (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN politician. Syrthiss (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete1 Article fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources about him. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note page is now semiprotected from the IP socks removing the afd notice. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Congressman" does not mean he's in the House of Representatives, but rather that he supports the Congress Party. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to The X Factor (UK series 7).

There is a rough, approaching firm, consensus to delete here. The debate is about whether the retention of the article is precluded by WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS, both being policies. Some arguments on either side have to be given little weight: in particular, several keep opinions made either assertions that have no relationship to any accepted inclusion standards, while others argued general notability, which is not the issue (BLP1E, and arguably NOTNEWS, will preclude articles even where there is "significant coverage").

The dispute about BLP1E and NOTNEWS generally revolves around whether this is "one event" and a mere "news item" without enduring impact and coverage. Some degree of crystal ball-gazing is inevitable here by both sides. But at this stage there is a consensus that BLP1E, and to a less clear extent NOTNEWS, apply on the basis that (a) (for BLP1E) the subject is only notable for the one event; and (b) (for NOTNEWS) there is no evidence of enduring notability. I note the large number of early delete !votes. These early !votes may have otherwise been overtaken by events (eg if coverage and further events snowballed during the AfD). But even discarding the first few days of the AfD the consensus among the discussion would still have been to delete, indicating that after 14 days little had changed.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamu Nhengu[edit]

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

About as WP:BLP1E as it can get; also WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think there is any realistic chance of historical notability based on what we have so far here. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The gossip columns' attention relates to the appearance on X-Factor (or the result of it), it is commonly accepted that only finalists of talent contests are notable – usually only the winner and two runners-up. She fails on that count. The subject attracted 200,000 facebook signatures petitioning against her deportation... so yes, seems to be WP:BLP1E. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one will care about this person by the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.131 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Anemone Projectors 10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Wp:BLP1E (as a result of Cheryl choosing Katie and Cher over her) or Wp:NOTNEWS (see previous comment - seriously, this is considered news in Britain - and due to her impending removal from the United Kingdom). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS 86.156.0.137 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she is only notable for one thing and Wikipedia is not the news. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the redirect to The X Factor (UK series 7) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no matter what people think about reality stars in general this particular one has reached notability beyond X factor. her latest news story even made it onto the daily news on Sky News.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though she's been mentioned on the news it should go. She is WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS SimonD (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gamu Nhengu has not only been featured in the tabloid press and Sky News, but also by the BBC/ITV news teams, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times and by many overseas press outlets. She is notable, at least for now, as her story has been taken up internationally by politicians and press alike. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a breaking story and it's premature to pass judgement on it yet. In the list of those voting to delete: how many are from from the UK and watch the show when we can find people in here screaming 'delete' from New Jersey? There are a lot of people wanting information on the story and this is an excellent place for them to find it. For once don't let WikiTwits embellish Wikipedia's reputation any further. Otherwise it might be time to start an article on 'Wikipedia Stupidity'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.149.44.232 (talk)

I am from the UK, I voted delete. WP:NOTNEWS. However, I agree with those who state the article should be kept until the next show. If she does not make a return, there is no point in keeping it. Even if she does, reality TV show contestants do not seem noteworthy WP:BLP1E. If they win, and/or go on to have a successful career, that is the time for them to have an article. 86.156.0.137 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel still that their is enough pointing towards a keep as she has reached notability beyond her X-factor appearances. She made the headlines even outside the UK.. that is alot more than even some X-factor finalists have done.,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also the delete crowd here points towards certain "wikipedia rules" that doesnt even apply in this particular case/article. While the keep crowd points towarda actual opinions and standards. But that is just my opinion on the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS not apply here, in your opinion? Anemone Projectors 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. However there is a need for a paragraph below the list of The X Factor (UK series 7)#Judges' houses for major candidates rejected and there's no doubt Gamu Nhengu deserves a sentence or two regarding her performance and the outcry that ensued her elimination by Cole werldwayd (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - she's only received coverage for being kicked out of X-Factor and there isn't even any news about a career after the fact so she is likely to remain non-notable outside of this one event. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The social media campaign to keep the contestant in the competition reflects the changing ways in which people are now able to show their disapproval of decisions made by TV shows. The impacts of the campaign also reached into both national and international politics. The campaign affected domestic UK politics with Scottish MPs and SMPs calling for their ability to keep Gamu in Scotland as a major asset to Scotlands culture. In Zimbabwe both the current government are seeking to use Gamu in their internal politics with the opposition party saying she is a role model for Zimbabwean women and the Mugabe government wanting to make her a national hero in an anti-british campaign. 81.174.168.133 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC) — 81.174.168.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I should point out that the reason Nhengu is in the news is already mentioned in The X Factor (UK series 7)#Controversy and criticism. Anemone Projectors 12:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. as many people have said. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What harm is the article doing? Do you people not have other more serious things to worry about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HARMLESS Anemone Projectors 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I initiated this article not because of how outstanding Nhengu's talent may or may not be - opinions differ - or any prediction of lasting eminence on her own account, which obviously requires the verdict of time, but because of the exceptional phenomenon surrounding her rejection, which goes well beyond the scope of the article about the show itself. Only if you have been consuming British popular culture (in which I include the saturation of everyday gossip) in this past few weeks can you understand how out of the ordinary this has been. No other reality TV contestant has engendered a greater spontaneous public campaign (which extends beyond Facebook) to change a decision; an extraordinary half the residents (5/ 10k) in her county have now signed a petition to the British Government to allow her to stay in the UK; and it has thrown up a most significant example of newspaper double-speak where those tabloids that most enthusiastically fan anti-immigrant rhetoric have been the cheerleaders for keeping her in the country - many commentators have said that it has given a more human face to immigrants and asylum seekers. All that is worthy of note even in the unlikely event that she disappears without trace. There is therefore an argument for making the article one on 'The campaign for reality TV contestant Gamu Nhengu', but my judgement was that that would be a considerably more clumsy way of gathering the information, given that the story does revolve around her, seems far from over and may well produce further twists. Llahgob (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Initially notable for one incident but subsequent events have occured which are also notable, as debate exists about the status of children of people in the UK on visas, and she has received far more newspaper column inches than practically all of the finalists combined. As the article was created to identify a 'notable contestant', she qualifies. There is also the social media campaign on both Facebook and Twitter, and the accusations of producer interference in contestant selection within so-called 'reality' programming which make her a notable person in the UK. User:Apex204 ^{(User talk:Apex204)} 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple events which concern the subject directly and so BLP1E does not apply. This is not routine ephemeral news and so NOTNEWS does not apply. Instead we have massive notability per WP:GNG and notability does not expire so this person will still be well documented in sources in perpetuity. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put any usable content in The X Factor (UK series 7)#Controversy and criticism. Not especially notable or historically significant event/person, article is the result of recentism etc. Leave it a few months and if anything significant has sprung out of this it will become apparent. This stuff happens, and is reported on, all over the place. It has made national media simply by virtue of being associated with X-factor. Best dealt with on the X-factor page. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic violation of BLP 1E and NOT TABLOID. I generally support Wikipedia covering all significant news events but not transient internet phenomena of no possible continuing interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No possible continuing interest? This seems a bold prediction as it is my experience that, in such cases, continuing coverage is almost certain. If continued interest can be demonstrated in a year or more from now, will you undertake to restore the article if it has been deleted, so that it may be developed further? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it, it is already out of mainstream news, relegated to the middle pages of the tabloids (if mentioned at all). Feel free to revisit the article in a year! But I doubt you will have seen continued interest; people get bored, the media moves on. Unless the mount a significant legal challenge to avoid deportation (which is unlikely, the home office seems to have a cut 'n dried case) or some other big thing happens (i.e. she is executed or something) then it's a storm in a tea cup --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I'm giving a rationale for this relisting. Although the number of commentators in this AfD is beyond doubt enough, the discussion seems to not have come to a definite consensus. Seeing polarised comments for keep and delete, and also viewing a few votes that are illogical, I have to relist this AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly non-notable WP:BLP1E. Contestants in The X-Factor and other reality TV shows are generally not notable enough for their own pages, let alone those who failed to get through the earlier rounds. In this case, this was a story the tabloids ran with for a few days, but they've now got bored and moved on; it's already yesterday's news. There's no case for long-term notability here. Robofish (talk)

09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Although the subject of this discussion achieved notoriety via the X Factor, her notability extends far beyond the TV show now. The topic of Gamu Nhengu, both her singing and her on-going visa problems, continue to make headlines around the world - and are also being discussed at the highest world political levels too. A search of Google News [5] shows she is still the topic of scores of global media articles - so WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS do not apply. Indeed, her widespread notability appears to qualify her for WP:GNG.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times do you plan on voting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Eucberar is pointing out that Myosotis Scorpioides has now !voted twice. Anemone Projectors 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename if necessary - but deletion is not an option here. In my opinion it is not a BLP1E, given that there are multiple events connected to the coverage in sources, which is wide. In any case let us remember that BLP1E is almost never a reason to outright delete: the policy says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - Therefore, in the case consensus is assessed for BLP1E to apply, the article can be renamed and edited to switch the focus to the event (which clearly passes GNG) -as it has been practice in multiple other cases (e.g. Disappearance of Maura Murray). Since it is an issue demanding only editing, per deletion policy, we do not delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A singularly bad example; it was a marginal event at the time, but the ongoing media coverage (spanning the whole lot of years between then and now) solidify it as historically significant. I doubt this will be mentioned again after Xmas (if not before). If it is things can be reconsidered easily. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical significance is not something we can fathom and is not a criteria of our notability guidelines. Notability is forever: once something has been picked up by sources, it is notable, it doesn't cease to be so because public's attention vanishes. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether we consider this a BLP1E (which I do, very much) or a BIO. In the former case we do ask for historical significance or a lasting effect. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Massively notable with widespread on going media coverage per editor Myosotis Scorpioides. The fact she's attracting coverage week after week in TV , magazines and newspapers ought to be enough to persuade folk she has enduring notability, even if they can see a reason. But just to be helpful , heres three very significant aspects to her story, which also show BLP1E doesn't apply. Shes a rare case of a reality TV evoking so much passion that there has been multiple death threats against those who voted her off the show. It's a notable case of an online campaign having real world impact. The fate of her family and the related public debate is an interesting bellwether of opinion in British society - which will be the strongest out of the poplar desire for tougher immigration procedures v the human appeal to let them stay? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still believe that Gamu is notable beyond her original X-factor appearance. Her face is seen almost daily in newspapers and her story has been spread trough out the world. This article is a special case as she might not be notable for her x-factor appearance alone, but the effects afterwards has made her notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E. A failed reality tv run is really her only claim to fame, fan-driven facebook hysteria or rumors of deportation do not confer notability outside of the original event. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

typical delete sayers, pointing towards Wikipedia standards that can be interpreted in different ways. Also its as usual never any deeper explainations to their stand except the usual "non notable television star" totally disregarding other factors. Like here above. This is a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person failed a reality tv competition. Fans created a facebook group. There's some vague rumors of deportations and racism reported by tabloids. That's it. All of this is part of the same topic; reliable sources cover this person in the context of the X-Factor bid. Yes, failures can go on to do more and become notable independent of the original event, e.g. William Hung. But when the coverage of Nhengu is being blared by the likes of entertainmentwise.com and little else, there's not much one can do to justify an article. This is why we have 1E and not-news guidelines; so that one-and-done news blips don't get an article in an encyclopedia forevermore. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To everyone invoking NOTNEWS, which, remember, is not meant to delete every news from the encyclopedia but to avoid covering "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", I want to quote the wise words of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not." --Cyclopia ^talk 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. NOTNEWS says quite explicitly: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and then goes on to list some examples. NOTNEWS does not list explicitly what we should disclude, instead it asks us to consider the enduring notability of people and events. This is a regular mis-interpretation of NOTNEWS that is sometimes used to try and incorrectly undermine it. None of these are hard and fast rules, simply advisories with which we try to make an informed decision. In terms of the article, BLP1E helps establish this as suitable as an event, not a bio, and under that context it is not suitable for an individual article. However it may be (and indeed I agree is) significant for inclusion in the X Factor article. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia that the Keep sayers has to establish a huge amount of reasons for their opinion, while Delete sayers never have too. Gamu is notable way beyond her X-factor appearance and that is why I said Keep. And I will stick to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is starting to look like a No Consensus Afd. Because facts has been brought on that proves both sides of the argument pro or against Gamus article. The only reasonable thing to do would be to end this Af as No consensus and then if nothing more happens in 6 months time then bring a second Afd discussion on.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, you're starting to verge on disruptive. We've all made quite extensive cases - both for keep and delete. Either actually contribute more information or sit back, don't rehash you're same arguments over and over (this is explicitly discouraged). It could actually harm your argument. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has notability way beyond original appearance on the X Factor, given her status as an asylum seeker example amongst the British media and British public. Also notable in terms of massive public online support potentially impacting on her citizenship in the UK. This potentially has importance as a piece of social and immigration history. Kafuffle (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly agree to keep the page. I do believe that the Gamu page is completely nobel. She has had number of headlining pages in the paper's - plus a appearing on one of the biggest shows in the UK, i think that the page is now nobel. L.Geee 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E -- role^player 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep!!! The whole world is talking about this girl.Not just her singing talent but political issues, immigration issues,racism, media issues internet groups,ect.... People are going to want to know about her, they need somewhere decent yo get their information from!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.77.1 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per the comments above. This article indicates that she has not heard from anyone on the X Factor, including Mr Cowell, so is likely to be deported back to Zimbabwe. Once that happens I doubt very much we'll hear of her again, so not notable --5 albert square (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely believe this article should be deleted. If this person was worthy of a wikipedia article, every TV blow-in would be on wikipedia. She got her 15 mins of fame, she will soon be forgotten and this article will be of use to no-one. Seriously consider this; how many people would you think will type Gamu Nhengu into a search by next year? Heggyhomolit (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What people will search next year is completely irrelevant for our inclusion standards. All what matters is if we have multiple secondary sources coverage. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely quite many as she according to the article and a source could be shot if she returns to her homeland. Also her possible deportation in itself will have people looking for this article about Gamu,.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply meant that she is not worthy of an article of her own as she will be forgotten by then. I do however believe that any information about her should be included on the X Factor 2010 page.Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even past contestants who made it ONTO the live shows and the final don't have their own articles. They had media coverage during the shows but they were not worth articles on, and have their own section in the show-related articles. And yes nobody will care or remember this in a short while. Dollvalley (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet the GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. She is notable for one single event, being on the X factor. What is more, she failed to qualify for the finals. Even most contenstants who do qualify for the finals of this annual show don't have Wikipedia articles, and Ms Nhengu is no different from the large number of people who did not make the final. The fact that many people thought her to be good does not make her more notable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two weeks on, as the initiator of this article, it seems to me that the original justification for its existence has only grown. Those who repeatedly point to Nhengu's personal relative 'non-notability' or transient fame are correct (currently - although the latest rumours suggest she has several offers of recording contracts), but are missing the point - the article is NOT here primarily because of her mere appearance on X Factor, how 'good' a singer she is or is not, or her 'failure' to get to the finals (none of which, alone, justify it), but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, and continues as I write. It is not a footnote 'about' the TV show, but a separate and notable phenomenon involving thousands of articles in reputable publications in numerous countries, and a variety of topics and connections; her name seemed to me the most convenient hook to hang all that on. Hence, while there remains an argument to change the title, deletion of this body of information at this stage would seem to irrationally discount all that evidence. Llahgob (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, see this is my main reason for rejecting the subjects notability. It's not really "international".. not at least from my observation anyway. As to the asylum issue, certainly it is controversial, and there has been some public reaction. But not a lot and the case is fairly cut and dried against them; she will almost certainly be deported today. My problem, though, is this; no reporting has dealt in any depth with the "controversy", mostly it was outraged fans (from what I can pick up), which is fair enough, but I don't really see anything particularly notable, legally game changing or otherwise of enduring public interest. *shrug* --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The public's reaction is not a reason for this article to stay, quite the opposite. If it is the reaction of the public to this The X Factor (UK)-event that is notable, not the person, then that reaction should be mentioned where it belongs, in the article on this year's season The X Factor (UK series 7). As a matter of fact, it is already dealt with in that article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for its existence? It looks to me like the vast majority of votes here are to delete the article. People get deported all the time, and as for UK asylum and immigration issues; I don't think this case has any encyclopaedic purpose. I really don't see a place for this article on wikipedia, and I stand by my original vote to delete. As a matter of interest, this subject has not been in the media all week.Heggyhomolit (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the comment above, I read Swedish, Finnish, German, French and Italian media daily and have never seen Nhengu mentioned even once. I do not say that fame in only one country would not be sufficient (provided that the person is notable in that country, which I don't think Nhengu is), but those advocating "keep" by claiming "international coverage" seem to overstate their case.Jeppiz (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with what seems to be consent of the nominator Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Liberation Front[edit]

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

Lets prune the crap. I would not even care if this article didn't appear to be a one-sided strawman, but it is, so I do. Please delete and salt this page, as it appears to be mainly a media publicity page with no real content.Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original AFD nomination was malformed, fixed it. No opinion on the page itself. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Which of the four excellent references did you choose not to read? They may not be well cited, which is a formatting issue, but any group that captures the attention of The San Francisco Chronicle, Salon Media Group, Adweek and LA Weekly does not have a notability issue. -- role^player 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, passes WP:GNG. Article needs love and expansion, not deletion. If the nominator has NPOV concerns, let him/her be reminded that we do not delete what we can improve. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references and overall biographical content for this article are too short, and most of them are about one event, I'm afraid. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Multiple quality sources over a period of years. Many more found in quick searches of Google News and Google Books. Clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't even think that the article is particularly one-sided, although any such issues can certainly be addressed through editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the Chronicle source looks particularly strong to me, and taken together I'm convinced that WP:ORG is met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome: Keep.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD G11, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballhyped[edit]

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

Was gonna tag it for speedy, but then became unsure. Was launched less than a month ago; find it difficult to convince myself that this can be notable so quickly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building Services Architect[edit]

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

Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic.. Is little more than a large dictionary definition. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this. It would have been procedurally deleted by now. If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, so a deletion, or a move to another architecture related article would also probably be in order.--Kudpung (talk)
Delete. As per nom, basically an unreferenced dicdef, reads very much like original research on an unnotable topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Do you imagine that people are able to build massive buildings without writing about the design of aircon, lifts (elevators), power, water &c. See BTEC National Construction, Building Services Engineering..., for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Building services engineering is a significant professional discipline which is required for all large buildings. The nomination seems to be disruptive to the development of this new article contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing about the importance of the profession. The nomination is for a page that contains little more than a dicdef that has been languishing ~~at the bottom of the NPP list since 31 August~~at NPP for ten weeks because its creator cant't be bothered to come back and expand it, and no other editors, and nobody here on this AfD knows what to do with it. The article does not assert sufficient importance for its existence. If it had been a PROD, it would have been long gone already. The nomination is perfectly justified because it gives you an opportunity to challenge it, but two relistings here, one keep, and one delete, have demonstrated that nobody cares either way.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elnec[edit]

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

The domain is spam, and also promoting company products, Advertising. Removed PROD. WuhWuzDat 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I wouldn't go so far as to call it spam, but I'm not seeing much in the way of reliable sources either. I'd lean slightly toward delete but maybe someone in the field can shed some more light. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please consider also that products of the company are sold in the US and UK under different brand names - as "Dataman" and "B&K Precision" - so brand "Elnec" may not be well known there, but for sure is present. Elnec products are used by worldwide Electronics manufacturetrs as Foxcon, Samsung, Acer, etc. Products are also recommended by many chip producers:*Microchip reference, STMicroelectronics reference eg., EM microelectronics reference, XILINX reference, etc. - (may not good references for the article). Pssstpssst (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Trip Records[edit]

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

no evidence that this company/record labol is notablie Oo7565 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my entry at Talk:Bad_Trip_Records#September_2010 re: WP:FAILN, WP:N question on interpretation of "trivial mention", and WP:USEFUL - Note COI(s) in my Userpage! - bonze blayk (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) - REV bonze blayk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article cites no non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the current stub is unsourced, given the ongoing relationship of the label to the catalog of Angry Samoans, one of the seminal bands from the history of punk, there is no reason to believe that sources do not exist or will not emerge if the article is allowed to stand and develop. Label predates the explosion of the internet, which is why a Google search may well be fruitless, but there is probably vintage printed sourcing out there in the long grass. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where is the third party coverage? [6]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - added references to Bad Trip releases from Robert Christgau's Record Guide; see scans at http://www.badtriprecords.biz/gif/Christgau_Record_Guide.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonze blayk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plasti-Clad[edit]

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

Restored after my speedy deletion, with a claim that the review in Gear Diary supports the article.. I consider that review to be clearly a promotional write up. The leading contractor claim turns out to be a contract for $23,000, according to the ref. given. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete reads a bit too much like a brochure. It's possible the company that makes this thing may be notable, they do have some big-name clients, but there too sourcing would likely be a significant problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gear Diary is not citeable. Unless there exists other proper and notable references, this needs to go. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Wrangler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tape Wrangler

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

This stub is an article about one minor brand of tape dispenser. It seems to be promotional and is not really a noteworthy subject. There is an article about the general subject of tape dispensers but I would not want every manufacturer to list their individual products in WK. Wikipedia should not be a product listing service. Pkgx (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources in the article demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline. As far as advertising, I'm not seeing that the article has a promotional tone. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources available are mostly press releases, nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are just press release, which don't supply an notability. Wizard191 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment This has been posted and reposted with only one editor (the author) supporting this article. Let's delete it. Pkgx (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query - are the sources from the Traverse City Record-Eagle and The Detroit News press releases? What about the product review from Hardware Retailing Magazine? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have to agree with Arbitrarily0 on this one. The sources he mentions don't look like press releases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Traverse City article is good, but the Detroit News and Forth Worth Star articles both begin with "You can do anything with duct tape, except for getting it off the roll in a smooth, straight piece. Most of the time, the tape folds over and crinkles as you tear off a strip. A new product solves that problem. The Tape Wrangler is like a giant tape dispenser for duct tape. The tape roll fits on a spool and pulls off across a cutting blade that keeps the cuts neat and...", so it appears to be a reprint from somewhere. I don't have access to the full text, so perhaps they diverge as they continue, but they read like a press blurb floated to newspapers. The Hardware Retailers magazine is "the hardware and home improvement industry’s leading trade publication," and is sent free to members of the North American Hardware Retailers Association, basically a vehicle for advertisers to target hardware retailer with some fluff and feel good pieces, and I don't think these three really go to establish notability in the generals sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article. While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you have access to the full article in Detroit News, yes? Does it have a byline, such as AP or Reuters? That would be the usual way a reprint between two regional papers would work. As for the 'spring product review' my assumption is that spring refers to the season, but again, I couldn't say without full access to the text of the article. I'm very leerly of using snippets to assess notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a biker I only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should I use WD40. If it does move and it shouldn't I use duct tape. From what I can see of the topic it seems to be a fairly unique product - I don't know of any other duct tape dispensers and I work in theatres sometimes where we use miles of the stuff. That's OR/POV of course, so take it for what it's worth. Reading the listed sources it does seem to me to be a notable product and I would happily support it being kept on that basis. I do think the article would be better rewritten to feature the company rather than one of its range of products. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mebbe across the pond duct tape is better, but here you'd use gaffer's tape and PB Blaster--WD40's a good cleaner but not much else. (' --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, I don't see notability here. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without evidence that the Detroit News coverage is a press release reprint, assuming it is would be original research. That gives two reliable and independent news sources covering the product, which makes it notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, who's read the entire article in the Detroit News? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite (US band)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability. CSD removed by an editor claiming the band indicates notability based on a "specific association with Mitch Allan". While Allan is notable, WP:BAND only supports notability when a band "contains two or more independently notable musicians". This a new band, released debut EP July 2010 and performed together for the first time in August 2010. I do not see where the band meets any criteria of WP:BAND. Additionally, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band contains members of other notable bands. Whether or not this is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC, it makes it a non-starter as far as speedy deletion is concerned. Given that Allan's notability does not appear to be in doubt (despite the lack of sourcing), why would we want to delete this rather than at least merge it to the Mitch Allan article? --Michig (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitch Allan seems to be the smart choice, with no prejudice against splitting it back out when and if they do anything notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Clearly, deletion is not merited here, and AFD is not the venue to suggest merging—that can be taken to the article's talk page. — ξ ^xplicit 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal (EP)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation in the form of a WP:HAMMER violation. No announced tracklist. Not enough information available to produce a useful article. —Kww(talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - According to hammer it passes as the Title has been confirmed with a set release now available. Some will argue both tracklisting and Title, but Hammer does not specifically state both or only one. That aside information became only available today, in one day do you honestly not think there is not alot of information already available? Also, please see WP:GNG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is not a mandate. We are not under any obligation to have an article on everything that two sources can be scraped together for. When looking at WP:MUSIC for the guideline on when to include unreleased material, it reserves it for "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." What makes this fairly run-of-the-mill EP by a run-of-the-mill artist part of that "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects"? —Kww(talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does wikipedia try to delete everything? its good article, keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.154.195 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written, plenty of sources, and no speculation, thus certainly not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also note how silly it is to nominate this for deletion, given the former sentence. It's one thing to want to delete some album planned to be released in 2015 by some local band, it's quite another thing to want to delete well written articles soon-to-be-released-albums/EPs/singles from top selling artists out of some weird sense that articles can't exists until some arbitrary deadline (situated at most in a few days from now) hasn't been reached yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sure the article is a little premature, but the deletion nomination is an incorrect use of WP:CRYSTAL which applies to unverified and speculative events that might happen at some unknown time in the future. Just because something is in the near-future does not mean that saying so is pure speculation, when third-party sources have confirmed the upcoming event. All this article really needs is a cover image, otherwise it's for real. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per everything people have said above. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am fed up of seeing these all over the damn place. As previously stated, the article is well-written, well sourced and is going to be released. Half of the time, these deletion discussion get resolved just under a week before it has to go back up. No reason for it to be deleted. It's just silly. Adam 94 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am equivalently fed up with editors that haven't got the patience to wait for something to be real before writing the article. There's no reason to have articles on unreleased singles, albums, or EPs, except, as WP:MUSIC states, a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects. Nothing qualifies this EP to be considered in that select group.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the guideline cited by Kww above has non-specific terms that allow flexibility, including "very", "small", "exceptionally", and "high profile." I'm not totally sure who has the burden of proof here, but it might be the nominator given some of the equally flexible guidelines at WP:ATA. If you think this EP is not "high-profile" enough (for example), it would help this nomination to explain why. But in any case, the original nomination is still off-base altogether because the article does not violate the two guidelines mentioned specifically at that point: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. And so what if it's too early for an album article? Delete now and it will just be recreated later, and who is forcing you to read it in the meantime? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:MUSIC is responsible for explaining how to apply policies to its topic area. It violates WP:CRYSTAL as explained by WP:MUSIC. The burden of proof is always on the people wanting to include material, and never on those wishing to remove it. You might want to illustrate some way that this EP is exceptionally high-profile. That would go a long way towards meeting WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's high profile enough to warrant an article only a month before its release IMO. –Chase (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets ask, does it pass WP:MUSIC?

"Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." Done Title and release confirmed by dozens of sources and Kesha and label.
Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." Done Same thing as above, its confirmed, i wrote it and its notable, in less then 24 hours i have more information then most albums get. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't bother to read the part about this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Anything can pass part of a guideline. How does this article stack up against that part of the guideline?—Kww(talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it your taking that out of context, it actually says "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." According to this, the only thing were missing is tracklisting, defensibly not a Chrystal violation. And that paragraph is more so referring to an album years/ months away, not a month away. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Advance" is "advance", be it years, months, or weeks. What you are missing is being an "exceptionally high-profile project": there's no reason to have an advance article on this at all, even if it had a tracklisting.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, just silently walk away. There's no reason to return to an article that "shouldn't exist". Anyways, an alternative might be to place it in the Article Incubator, so certain people are appeased. Adam 94 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, there is no way this should be deleted outright but yes its not quite notable yet. if one of its singles had charted or if we have a tracklisting i'd be screaming keep. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a fair amount of coverage at the moment, and there should be more closer to the album's release in a month. –Chase (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't think WP:NALBUM is an issue here, seeing as we already have the title and release date confirmed. –Chase (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of sources and the album was confirmed. - Nickyp88 —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I don't think this article should be deleted since the album is announced and also, it is confirmed that it will be releases on November 22, 2010. MacarangaChic (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What everybody else said. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 09:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Article has plenty of reliable sources to pass the GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Kww easily could add a "merge in" Kesha notice instead. Pass NAlbum, Hammer, Crystal, and other polices. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Systementalism[edit]

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

Appears to be original research ttonyb (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research/personal essay, no sources. JIP | Talk 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced personal essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination: ...concept that the meaning of life can be simplified to the ensured survival of the human species. The term itself can be defined as "the mental awareness (of the natural evolutionary system that operates everything in existence) necessary to ensure human survival." I must be an anti-systementalist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay on a non-notable neologism without any reliable sources. First Light (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Quoting the article: There is no published material as of yet that elaborates on the concept of systementalism as it is in it's early stages of development... Carrite (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Bastard[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS (only source is a wiki site for TV trivia) and appears to be original research. Google search did not give any corroborating sources. The Interior (Talk) 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It seems someone has mistaken Wikipedia for TV Tropes. Blatant OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strikes of strong original research as well. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article's creator, User:UberMan5000 has left what seems to be a weak delete comment on Talk:Magnificent Bastard. The Interior (Talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Be rid of the thing" sounds more like a G7 to me. It qualifies, so I tagged it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust, Knowledge & Opportunity[edit]

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

No confirmed release date, no tracklist, no cover, no information beyond a trivial stub. WP:CRYSTAL violation. Normally I'd try redirecting, but it isn't clear to me exactly where a redirect would point. —Kww(talk) 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this case there is definitely not enough information available to warrant an album article. It appears that the album is really in production but that fact can be added to the artists' biography pages for the time being. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney City Trash[edit]

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

Australian country band, apparently written by one of the band members. Despite the giant number of G-hits I can't find any evidence of them hitting any charts. The once sourced news article alone doesn't seem to be sufficient to make this band pass notability. -WarthogDemon 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability per WP:MUSIC. As an aside, the Aussie country singles charts are WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Care will need to be taken in the article to discuss the various possible meanings, but they are not distinct enough to prevent a single article. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passive drinking[edit]

Passive drinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (<include<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popupsdev.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>only>View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable. Unfocused article with two sources referring to injuries caused by intoxicated people, two sources referring (one in clear jest) to the possibility of getting drunk through the air and one source (#3) that simply does not mention the topic at all, but is a set-up for the rant in the next source (#4). Buttload of "sources" on talk page are of no help. SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG. The term has real-world substantial coverage: see some of the Google books results for example. The article has problems but that is not a reason to delete, and at least two references are germane. I would be happy with a suitable merge target but found none. --Cyclopia^talk 13:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which meaning are you seeing as a notable topic? The search you list gives 7 visible results on the first page covering at least 4 distinct meanings and one or two cases where "passive drinking" is merely two words that happen to have occurred in sequence. Is "passive drinking" a term to refer to the societal costs associated with alcohol use/abuse? Is it a reference to those individuals harmed by others' drinking? Is it the concept of potentially getting drunk from alcohol vapors? Is it a literary device referring to the feeling from being in a bar where others are drinking? I don't see a coherent topic here. - 70.91.21.146 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That the expression has multiple used meanings, if anything, adds up to notability, does not reduce it. It simply means that the subject is more complicated than being a single topic. Anyway most sources refer to the meaning of societal costs associated with alcohol use/abuse. Here is a paper on passive drinking and another discussing exactly the very concept of "passive drinking" as a useful metaphor. This book and this other book cite the term in the same context. At least we can establish that this meaning of the expression "passive drinking" is highly notable (multiple academic sources). --Cyclopia ^talk 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG is exactly why I created this article, I looked it up couldn't find it and added it as this term has literally been used in governmental organizations (UK: the Department of Health of which Chief Medical Officer is Sir Liam Donaldson and the EU body EuroCare) and 4 leading news organizations, which are considered reliable sources. The CNN and The Independent references may be slightly sarcastic, The Daily Telegraph and New Scientist are not, in all the world these are considered leading news organizations, and they are using this phrase, albeit in a slightly different ways. You clearly need to learn how to use Google, and leave the wiki editing to people who will actually research their statements and use a search engine. Webhat (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we're talking about the societal effects of alcohol abuse, the article should either be called Societal effects of alcohol abuse with a redirect from the neologism "Passive drinking" or an expansion of the existing section, Alcohol_abuse#Societal_and_economic_costs. What we have is neither a discussion of the societal costs nor a discussion of the "history" of the neologism. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." WP:Neologism. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for referencing WP:Neologism, it states: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." This is not such a case as the Neologism exists already, and has a documented existence for over 20 years, if it gives you a hard-on to get this article deleted by all means get it deleted. However you could actually take the time to improve the article which is lacking in your opinion or merge it with another article. I hope you exercise the same due diligence when it come to articles you've created such as Pennsport (string band), Adelphia (fancies) and Greater Kensington (string band), which are all three not noteworthy and are WP:Orphan. After some investigation it also looks to me like User:Mdsummermsw and User:Mdbrownmsw, which are accounts of yours, look like Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, as a self proclaimed Senior Editor you should certainly have known this and reported it yourself, so I have submitted a report on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SummerPhD. Webhat (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webhat: If you take issue with articles I've created, this is not the place to discuss them. Take them to the individual articles. Your accusation of sock puppetry (already disposed of at SPI) also does not belong here. As for my being a "self proclaimed Senior Editor", you will find that yes, I am one of the thousands of editors displaying one of the Wikipedia:Service awards, as I am quite proud of the more than one dozen edits I have made. Having read that page so carefully, I would have assumed you would have figured out that nothing "gives me a hard-on". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - SummerPhD, either you didn't read my comment above, or I must stop assuming good faith. I linked a paper exactly about the "term or concept", as required by WP:NEOLOGISM. From the abstract of that paper: This article reflects on UK Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) 2009 announcement that alcohol abuse should be understood as a problem of 'passive drinking'. This was an attempt to instrumentally problematise drinking drawing on the successful campaign against 'passive smoking'. . It is clear that there is discussion about the term per se, and that it's not a mere occasional synonim. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia: Your comment, above, stating that the term referring to several different topics makes the term, as a topic, notable is rather confusing. In effect, then, it is not a term in those sources. "Horse" as a term is not notable, despite its numerous meanings. The meanings are notable. We have Equus, Horse (musician), Horse (geology), Horse (helicopter), etc. We do not have Horse (term). That the UK Chief Medical Officer used a term does not, IMO, make the fairly rare term "passive drinking" the "accepted short-hand term" for the societal costs of alcohol. In fact, the existence of numerous meanings for a phrase discredits the notion. Rather, the recent uses of the neologism seem to indicate that the 20 year old usage hasn't caught on. From what I see, the overwhelming majority of sources on the societal effects of alcohol abuse are ignorant of the purportedly "accepted short-hand term". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you still refuse to acknowledge that there are sources on the terminology per se, as proved by the reference above, and you dodge the fact that, even if a majority of sources don't use an expression, the fact that the expression is cited in books and discussed in papers makes it notable under our criteria. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)--Cyclopia ^talk 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wit (software)[edit]

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

The subject lacks notability: there are no nontrivial independent mentions of this software Malatinszky (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Advertising for more back office "project management" software. One of many, this makes no case that this product has historical, technical, or cultural significance. Note also that many Google hits for the phrase are actually about something called "Web Idea Tree", which would appear to be unrelated. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Piecha[edit]

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

This bio of a journalist has been PRODded twice for notability concerns and contested. It came to my attention because a user has been replacing the content [7] (user claims this is still the same person), however I can't find biographical coverage that would establish notability for any version of the article. January (Cassandra 73) ^talk 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for sources and come up empty handed. The sources already cited have either rotted away or contain minimal information. I agree with the nominator. There's no way to write a verifiable biography here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing term[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Neutral for the time being. The concept of a "marketing term" probably is capable of expansion, and in fact seems to be in such routine use that I'm a bit stymied to find sources that discuss "marketing term" in a general way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against. The term is encyclopedic and should be expanded. Should be marked as a stub to encourage expansion. --Treekids (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been marked as a stub since 2008, and has not been expanded beyond a definition. If you would care to undertake the sourced expansion of the article now go right ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've hit the same problem as Ihcoyc. The problem is that the ordinary meaning of "marketing term" is an item of jargon terminology used in the field of marketing. But that isn't what this article claims to be about. As far as I can tell (at any rate), this article claims to be about the nonce words and phrases that people offhandedly, and disparagingly, refer to as "marketing terms". Although there are sources that mention ordinary marketing terminology/jargon, mostly simply glossaries of the same, I have yet to find a source that documents what this article purports to be about. I suspect that this name is itself a "marketing term" for what is more usually called marketing speak or a buzzword. But I cannot be sure. The article's creator has given very little context to go on in the article, zero sources, and zero further explanation above in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a marketing degree, and honestly don't understand what the definition of "marketing term" means here. When I read the first sentence, I though it meant a brand name, which is also supported by the claims that it could be copyrighted (at least the logo) and trademarked. In this case, the correct term is brand name. Another alternative is, as Uncle G states, that it is a buzzword. However, buzzwords are not normally trademarked or copyrighted. Could it be slogan that is meant? Then again, brand names, buzzwords and slogans are all too short to be copyrighted (they can only be registered as trademarks). "Marketing term" could also mean something akin to greenwashing (a word used to describe marketing strategies), but that is again not copyrightable or trademarkable. Unless someone can explain what the term means, please delete it as WP:OR or even WP:HOAX. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at it, I thought it meant "slogan" or "buzzword." Not sufficiently used to justify a redirect. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a dictionary or glossary. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources, also per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Structured product. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rate-linked note[edit]

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

No sources cited, none found in search. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge - I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources (only potential sources I found were from SmithBarney & CitiBank). Based on my limited knowledge, it seems like this might be better suited being added and merged with the Structured Product wiki page. It's also worth noting that there are wiki pages for related terms: credit-linked note & equity-linked note.--Artlovesyou (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Structured product. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Shong[edit]

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

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable atleast on the lowest level of notability requirement here on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, no explanation of which notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did add a reference but it's just talking about her measurements and dogs. It is in-depth, but I don't consider that encyclopaedic. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her listed accomplishments don't add up to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage. fails WP:BIO. [8] LibStar (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO, not very much significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce And The Boys[edit]

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

Nominated per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue, only assertion of notability is unreferenced. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a source for the competition win (warning: annoying music on that webpage); so there is at least a reference for the assertion of notability. As for whether to delete or keep, I'm sitting on the fence for now. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 gnews hits does not cut it. [9]. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NovoLogic.com[edit]

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

Spam article created by firm's publicist ("media specialist" -- see [10]). No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Notable clients does not make a company notable. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ....an online local marketing, communications, consulting, training, Elearning and interactive agency that provides services to its clients in the areas of digital advertising, content creation, media buying, strategic counsel, analytics, technology and user experience, and if you are feeling somewhat glassy eyed you are not alone. References supplied are to blogs or announcements of product. No relevant Google News archive hits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Effectively no coverage, creator's an SPA. Can't establish notability. (Just poking around, it looks like he just built the page in his userspace. Creator also mentioned "...the article I was building for Aretta Communications...". Spam spam spam.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the "keep" !voters make a good case that he meets WP:CREATIVE, I can't ignore the lack or reliable sources. Furthermore, aside from referring to him in the past tense, there's no mention of whether or not he's still alive so this article may be a BLP. A reliable source showing his date of death would be useful. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Smith[edit]

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

No sources except IMDB, no real notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly satisfies #3 of WP:CREATIVE. While IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical content, it is an accurate source for verifying what projects an animator like Hank Smith has been involved with. These credits are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America and are therefore highly accurate and reliable. The imdb list of credits for Hank Smith as an animator is both long and impressive.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above. Imdb is a reliable enough a source to establish #3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't support a whole article with one source. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "one source tag"; which would have been a better solution than dragging this through an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per 4meter4 Imbd does show what projects the person has been in and in this case shows he passes the third criteria of the WP:CREATIVE. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources providing significant coverage about this individual. With respect to his work as documented by IMDB, I don't dispute that he did those things. However a long list of work indicates that he was an employed, and likely competent animator, but does not speak to notability. There is no indication of any awards. There is no indication that he had a significant role int he creation of any of the works. The credits for animators is quote long in any series. For examplle, he is one of 32 (if I count correctly) animators employed in the production of "The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show", and 1 of seven animators in the animation department for "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown". -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you did not include in your count was the sheer volume of this man's work... representing a 26-year career with the bulk of it at a time when animated films were hand-drawn cell by cell by teams. Heck, even early Disney works were drawn by teams of animators. So what? WP:CREATIVE recognizes that being part of a creative team is acceptable to Wikipedia, and WP:ENT recognizes that being prolific can also be notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Although this person worked on several notable animation projects, his jobs on those projects does not appear to have ranked high enough to make him notable for them. Additional sources would be necessary to establish his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be remembered that his verifiable and quite prolific career spanned from pre-internet 1960 all the way through 1986... a time when computerized animation was in its infancy. His 26-year career represents many many thousands of hours hand-drawing animation cells... much gruntwork to entertain many millions of children over a many years period... and little fame for his work beyond the works themselves being eminently sourcable as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this Google Books search: [11]. I am satisfied that his notability is confirmed. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which of those search results is a source that treats this person in some detail. All I see are animation credits. That isn't in dispute. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While meeting the WP:GNG would be excellent, we still need to consider that his lengthy career in animation can be well and easily verified in numerous reliable sources, thus confirming that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment... and due to the wide coverage of his works, it can also be determined that this person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are making assumptions based on him being listed as an animator. That verifies he worked on the project but does not provide any information to substantiate the assertions you've made. He may very well be a great animator but I have yet to see one source actually cover him. Just credit lists. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think Schmidt is making any assumptions. He's merely pointed out that Smith adequately meets the guidelines at #3 WP:MUSIC by virtue of his involvement in a lengthy number of notable animated films and television series. An animator who has animated for multiple important shows is notable. That's the policy.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - He is one of many animators in an animation team working on the material. There is no indication that he was the lead animator or director or playing any other sort of significant role in shaping the works so being solely prolific isn't a very good reason. If we only go by prolific, people with a long string of bit parts in movies would qualify. Writers who churn out a guge volume of work that nobody cares to critically review would qualify. Eseentially any creative professional with a large body of work would qualify. What is missing here is some indicaitont hat this individual is more than just an animator who has gotten a string of jobs. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to express a personal mandate that this individual has to meet the GNG in order to be notable, and that is simply not the case... not in guideline nor in policy. If you wish to use WP:WAX arguments, Wikipedia recognizes that one need not be MVP to be seen as part of a notable baseball team, and one need not be the lead singer to be seen as notable to a major band. And so to address your own WP:WAX example, this article is not about an uknown writer who cranks out reams of non-notable, unreviewed pap... so we might best stay on topic, shall we. Per guideline, we have an individual who has made prolific, repeat PROLIFIC contributions to a field of entertainment. Per guideline, we have an individual who, as yes... part of a team... was involved in co-creating, multiples of multiples of significant or well-known works and collective bodies of work, works that have themselves been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And as dismissive as it is to say he has just "gotten a string of jobs" as if it were a haphazzard handful, that "string" turns out to be multiples of multiples of notable animated films and multiples of multiples of notable animated television series over a 26-year-long career that ended way back in pre-internet 1986. A mere string of jobs? Hardly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's done enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NextStep ReUse[edit]

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

Asserts notability, but I do not see evidence that it passes WP:CORP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt - Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria, which is why I stuck a ((Db-inc)) on it … given that it has been deleted twice already (G12 and A3), perhaps it should be salted? The author should have used (and in the future, should use) a sandbox/sub-page to add some WP:RS (should any exist) and then move it into article space. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{02:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak keep: Salting, at least, would seem inappropriate since there actually are significant sources for this charity. Google News archives search turns up dozens of stories, mainly in the local Eugene Register Guard[12], but there is national coverage as well: the CBS national news program The Early Show broadcast a profile on the organization and its founder, Lorraine Kerwood, on March 7, 2008 {see "Woman With Autism Heads Computer Recycler: Turns Talents For Fixing Them Into Green Service For Needy" and "Autistic Woman Keeps Giving" (the latter a video)}; she's also mentioned in other local and non-local media news stories, some relating to her winning a "Volvo for Life" public service award in 2008: New York Times[13], Minneapolis Star-Tribune[14], YES! Magazine[15], People magazine[16]. I note that an attempted article about Lorraine Kerwood was evidently speedy-deleted earlier today. I'd be inclined to think that the sources indicate enough notability to support an article about the charity and its founder, under one or the other title.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep under its name nextstep recycling it gets coverage. [17]. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grockle[edit]

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

Short dictionary definition of slang terms from south west England; prod removed by author of article GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 23:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Lambiam 06:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Merge~~ to Grock from whom the word is thought to be derived. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Oxford Dictionaries the word has a completely different origin,^[1] so this merge us perhaps not really a good idea. --Lambiam 03:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. As the word's origin is disputed/uncertain and has been the subject of papers such as this, the matter is therefore notable and so the article should be kept. I shall amend my summary accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still just essentially a dictionary definition. Almost all words in the English language have an entry in etymological dictionaries, and many have a disputed or uncertain origin about which something has been written, such as "spiffy". If that by itself is sufficient reason for keeping, then our "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy becomes meaningless. --Lambiam 06:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "What is the origin of the word 'grockle'?". Oxford Dictionaries.

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

Delete per Lambiam. It reads just like a dictionary definition, no more no less, and even starts with Definition. It's a grockle just passing through Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etc. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grockle as a perfectly good job is already been done by Wiktionary. (AbrahamCat (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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