< 9 July 11 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. cited school as per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Schools - nominator also withdrew his non. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seibi Junior College

[edit]
Seibi Junior College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't locate any independent, verifiable sources that establish this school's notability. Further, there has been no movement on this article in the 20 days since the warnings were posted. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular talk 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis (card game)

[edit]
Haggis (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New board game with no evidence of notability. Tags added several days ago indicating need for RS references, but none have been forthcoming, despite numerous attempts by original author. Strongly suspect that original author is involved in the promotion of this game. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I'm the original creator and main contributor to this article thus far.
Full disclosure: I have played the game's creator online at boardgamearena.com. He asked me and several other top-ranked players on the site for AI suggestions to aide developers of an upcoming Haggis iOS app. My planned assistance in the project is unpaid and voluntary, in thanks for his permitting Haggis to be playable for free at BGA. Gratitude also prompted me to start the Wikipedia article. This "promotion" of the game was completely voluntary, and my main motivation was to give back to the Wikipedia community which has been of so much help to me, and to possibly introduce a few people to a new, fun game.
I feel the Haggis article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, it is a new game from an indie publisher, but it is in its 2nd printing, and several gaming publications have given it mention. I apologize if the sources I provided were considered "unreliable". Sadly, Haggis has not yet been the subject of a major research paper, or profiled in a NYTimes article--it's a game--it's talked about in gaming magazines and on gaming websites. The publications where it's mentioned may have tiny print runs, but I would argue that they are "experts" in their small field. Haggis need not be mentioned in academic texts or national news media to be considered of sufficient notability to the gaming community.
Sean Ross, the game's creator, is active on gaming websites answering questions about Haggis and has given several interviews regarding it, including on BoardGameGeek, which is known as "a resource without peer for board and card gamers, the recognized authority of this online community."[1] I understand how a link to Sean Ross answering questions in the BGG forums may be considered an inadequate source, I'm sorry. However, among the sources Ebikeguy rejected as unreliable were a PDF of the official Haggis rules booklet (same text as released in the physical game), an issue of Meeple Syrup, the newsletter for Game Artisans of Canada (and the definitive source for the naming history of Haggis according to Sean Ross). Some sources I had not attempted to cite due to language barriers were a mention in Spielbox, a German board gaming magazine, and coverage in a German podcast, at http://www.thespiel.net/?q=node/664. Additionally, a review appeared in an article on GamesFanatic.pl, a popular Polish gaming site, written by staff writer Jacek Nowak.
My apologies if I haven't kept entirely up-to-date with Wikipedia editorial policy--it's been a few years since I've been active. However, after reviewing the standards for notability, I still feel this article is deserving of inclusion. --Everlong (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have some additional information about those sources. The Google Translate result for the GamesFanatic article is here and is understandable despite translation errors. A friend was able to acquire a scan of the Haggis article from Spielbox Magazine's English edition. Uploaded here with OCR of the text below (680 words). Also, thespiel.net podcasts are in English, not German. Their coverage of Haggis begins at 34m10s in the mp3, and runs for 2m10s. For your convenience, I've made an ogg clip containing just the Haggis coverage, as well as a transcript (420 words).
Besides giving an overview of the rules and remarking on Haggis's similarity to Tichu, all the sources praise Haggis for being the first game to successfully create a fun, climbing, trick-taking game for two to three players (most previous games required 4 players exactly, or more). They are also in agreement that the evenly distributed, face card "bombs" are a notable innovation for the genre, helping even out hand strength enough to make 2-person play workable, and enhancing the strategic element of the game. --Everlong (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a frequent user of wikipedia and an infrequent editor (probably only a half dozen edits total). I'm not 100% sure of the rules for what is deserving of inclusion, but I do second the author's position that this game has gotten a lot of buzz in the board and card gaming community since it was released. I've seen not just formal reviews of it but lots of chatter among my board gaming friends because this game has some interesting characteristics that set it apart from other games of its type (mostly these changes make the game enjoyable with 2 or 3 players instead of needing 4). I have nothing to do with the game other than being an owner who enjoys playing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.48.153 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It's BGG rating would lend me to suspect this game is notable. I'm unsure if the Polish source is reliable, but if it is and if the Spielbox short review (which is a RS for certain) is at least a 100-150 words with some critical commentary we are probably in good shape. Additional print magazines or on-line sources with editorial oversight (generally something professional run by someone) which have published reviews would be really helpful. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2011 (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) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the policy-based arguments here are entirely on the delete side here. Notability is not popularity, an error made in the first keep !vote. The fourth keep vote is little more than WP:ITSUSEFUL All in all, the delete comments are on point, and the keep ones are not. Courcelles 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nubiles.net

[edit]
Nubiles.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed a section entitled "news" that was about activities unrelated to this website (although they did involve porn performers that the article claims are associated with this website). Without that section, the lack of references (and the fact that this article has been previously deleted as spam more than once) suggest that this isn't a notable website. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Standard Bank

[edit]
Global Standard Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website is brand new, not quoted by any media, is unknown to all but a handful of people, and has no significance whatsoever. Imperi (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It gets worse.[3] The picture they show of their offices, with their logo on the front, is a Photoshopped version of a picture of a building in Seattle, which does not have their logo. Wikipedia is being used to make a scam look legitimate.) --John Nagle (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Global Standard Bank has been heard from. See Talk:Global_Standard_Bank#Lets_be_fair. They admit using faked pictures but deny criminal intent.--John Nagle (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ward

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC, next to no reliable 3rd party coverage that I can find. Rehevkor ✉ 22:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pimlico Plumbers

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

Contested PROD : This is an encyclopaedia and not the White Pages, purely here to promote this non-notable company. Also seen by the company as a PR tool. Mtking (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=pimlico%20plumbers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=pimlico+plumbers http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp?eceExpr=pimlico+plumbers http://www.smarta.com/search?text=pimlico%20plumbers From their own website: http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-in-the-press <--hundreds of press links both online and newspaper clippings http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-on-the-radio <--mentions, reports, interviews on BIG UK radio stations http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-on-tv <-- News articles, from the BBC, ITV, and Sky news They must be notable to get that much media coverage right? The article does need more information about the company though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.192.173 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — 81.137.192.173 (talk) 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. Courcelles 23:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Martínez (pitcher)

[edit]
Edgar Martínez (pitcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher, who is currently playing in unaffiliated independent ball. As a whole, his statistics weren't stupendous and therefore do not merit an article on their own. References are sparse. He was selected to an All-Star Futures Game, which may be his saving grace. Alex (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade Knives

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

Indie folk band of questionable notability. No significant claims of such in the articles, no referencing past primary sources. Google search on "Homemade Knives" folk band shows little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - most are blogs, social media, or simple listings. Google news search on the same term shows no results on the band. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jorgenev 03:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All local/regional press - not really significant coverage, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Hunter/Gatherer Society

[edit]
Evolution of Hunter/Gatherer Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an essay, with the lead taken from Hunter-gatherer. Albacore (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and preserve the edit history. Nom withdrawn, Non admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin and Snowy

[edit]
Tintin and Snowy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Tintin and Snowy was split quite a while ago into the two articles Tintin (character) and Snowy (character), and apparently no one ever went back to delete this article. It is now a duplication of those other two articles within the project. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the "what links here" and it appears to be only Wikipedia pages and user talk pages, no articles. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Tintin's FA: The Adventures of Tintin (in its Characters section) has been showing links to the new Tintin (character) article and the new Snowy (character) article ever since it was split: [4]. Same situation in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article: [5].
The old original article, the one we are considering for deletion, is curantly an orphan (WP:O). Occasionally, and at a low frequency, some unfortunate editors try to improve the old orphaned article. The two new articles are improved at a high frequency. —Prhartcom (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel, yes, certainly we agree about all three of those things. But read closely what I stated above: This article was spit into two new articles quite a while ago, each of which—if combined—contain all the text and sources of the original article, each of which are well-written, sourced, notable—all those things you like. The old original is a duplicate of the two new articles, word-for-word (not counting the edits made to the two new articles since). Not sure why the people who split it (you can still read some of their discussion) did not go back and clean up after themselves, but we can do so now. Do you understand why we should delete the old Tintin and Snowy article? —Prhartcom (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If content was taken from this article to make those other articles, then we must keep this one to preserve the edit history and attributions. Having this one focus on the relationship between the two characters would be a sensible way forward. Warden (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, bear with me here. WP:PRESERVE is not a guideline to excuse editors from cleaning up after themselves after splitting an article into two new articles. And your statement that the original article "focuses on the relationship between the two characters" is silly and shows you have not yet glanced the articles we are discussing (the two character's relationship is there in the two new articles). We simply have a situation in which content is duplicated; nothing will be lost by removing the duplication. We've said enough for the moment; let's let some other more sensible editors have a go. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would lose the attributions which are not optional but a legal requirement. WP:SPLIT says, "It is a requirement of Wikipedia's licensing that attribution be given to the original author(s), and deletion of that content should be avoided.". The attribution appears in the edit summaries made when the split was performed here: "Split content from Tintin and Snowy.". Deletion of this article would break this attribution link and that is not allowed. Warden (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The root guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I've placed ((Copied))s to track the copied content. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you simply make it a redirect to the series page. You really do like to make a lot of red tape to stop deletions, which is surprising from someone who I've seen try to argue that WP: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a reasonable excuse to ignore legitimate copyright issues.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thank-you, Yaksar and Lambiam; quite sensible. At the end of the discussion period we should replace the text of the Tintin and Snowy article with a redirect to The Adventures of Tintin#Tintin and Snowy.
Colonel Warden, you were quite right when you stated the edit history must be preserved; thank-you for pointing that out; I'm glad we will be able to preserve it. You were something else entirely when you stated things like the duplicate article is "well-written and sourced and the topic is notable" and that not deleting it in order to "focus on the relationship between the two characters would be a sensible way forward." My emphatic suggestion to you next time is to have a look at the article before making a recommendation, as you are required to do. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination, and Yaksar has replaced the original Delete recommendation by Merge, this discussion can now be closed by any uninvolved editor with a Speedy keep.  --Lambiam 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Van Zorn

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

Non notable play, un-performed performed only by semi-professionals, fails notability guidelines. PROD declined Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific notability guideline for plays (there probably should be), but WP:Notability (books) gives the principles:
  • The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
  • The book has won a major literary award.
  • The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
  • The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country
  • The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
I don't think any of these are met. The one source used is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, not generally considered RS. There is one other source, apparently RS, which is in the External links, not cited in the article. The play was apparently produced in a Brooklyn hall by a semi-professional company, this confers no notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your links. Tertiary sources, like all sources, have various levels of reliability. The only encyclopedia that is explicitly excluded as a source is Wikipedia itself, and that is because of other concerns. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I do notice that in WP:Notability, it does say that secondary sources are what are required for notability, but I think this is just to say that primary sources are not suitable. In this context I think a tertiary source would be an even higher indicator of notability. Tertiary sources can be considered a subset of secondary sources in this context I think. The criteria you cite for books seem a bit over the top, and would exclude things which have received significant notice in secondary (including tertiary) sources, which I think is the ultimate criterion. “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.” Significant coverage is the only thing that I think is of issue here, but two solid sources have been turned up, and a third is suggested below. Prefaces in collections of Robinson's works are another possibility. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect would be a good outcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evaluation in Americana would be out of place and distracting in Robinson's article, but for someone interested in the play it is useful. It needs to be complemented by other evaluations from other points of view, but it does fit in the solo article. Americana selected it as one of two or three of Robinson's works to do an article on. That says something for its notability. No one expects stubs to be developed immediately. This one has potential, and should stay around as an invitation, and a collection point. It is no easy task, and having it there as a stub will encourage it, while a few lines in Robinson's article will not. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the one remaining article (Filip Stojanovic). JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Đogatović

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

Non-notable footballer who's article was previously deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, which remains the case now. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admir Kecap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dino Caković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Filip Stojanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Muhankin

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

Not notable per WP:BLP1E. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the reason given above --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: DissidentRUS (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdraws; no remaining delete votes. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Kaidō

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

Multiyear unreferenced and uncategorized BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the claims in this article or establish notability for this Gensaku-sha. Additional sources welcomed as always. Withdrawn. See below. joe deckertalk to me 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen Recourt

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

Give more sources. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Wikix (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a most unsatisfactory nomination: (a) it gave no reason for deletion, (b) it was placed only 31 minutes after the article was created; and (c) the article at the time of nomination stated that the subject was a member of the Bangladesh national team, hence clearly notable per WP:NFOOTY, and provided a reference which confirmed this. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Chowdhury Mithun

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

—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zahid Hossain

[edit]
Mohamed Zahid Hossain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Give reliable sources. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has acknowledged the concerns expressed here, and has agreed to be mentored. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Keating (soldier, land developer)

[edit]
John Keating (soldier, land developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19:04, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeroen Recourt. (TW))
19:04, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Wikix ‎ (Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Jeroen Recourt. (TW))
19:04, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Jeroen Recourt ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeroen Recourt. (TW))
19:04, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeroen Recourt ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Jeroen Recourt. (TW))
19:03, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithun Chowdhury Mithun. (TW))
19:02, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Guitarist0407 ‎ (Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Mithun Chowdhury Mithun. (TW)) (top) [rollback]
19:02, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Mithun Chowdhury Mithun ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithun Chowdhury Mithun. (TW))
19:02, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithun Chowdhury Mithun ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Mithun Chowdhury Mithun. (TW))
19:02, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zahid Hossain. (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Guitarist0407 ‎ (Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Mohamed Zahid Hossain. (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Mohamed Zahid Hossain ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zahid Hossain. (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zahid Hossain ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Mohamed Zahid Hossain. (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keating (soldier, land developer). (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Richard Keatinge ‎ (Notification: listing at articles for deletion of John Keating (soldier, land developer). (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) John Keating (soldier, land developer) ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keating (soldier, land developer). (TW))
19:01, 10 July 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keating (soldier, land developer) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for John Keating (soldier, land developer). (TW))

He either works very fast, or is using a bot. Dream Focus 21:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources found do not establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iphone app after-life

[edit]
Iphone app after-life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Iphone app with no claim to notability. I found a passing mention of the app in a blog but no reliable sources at all. bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This App is noteable. There is no other product like this avaliable. It is a digital will it has been mentioned in several places on the internet. Please google properly. A press release has been submitted about this app to the major news networks. Do not make a fool of wiki by deleting something you know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBloggyDP (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the app is notable (that is to say, it has been given significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources), please help Wikipedia by providing these sources. Press releases about a product are not reliable sources. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that, Apple, is not a reliable source? That fact that it is included in the app store & the andriod market place. Also reviewed here at PC World (A reliable source) http://www.pcworld.com/appguide/app.html?id=924532&expand=false also a review here http://thetopapppreviews.com/after-life/ not to mention the andriod market place and videos. You seem like your mind is already made up, so just do what ever makes you feel powerful Gene93k, sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBloggyDP (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pcworld source is a press release from the company, it is not a review. Press releases are not considered reliable sources. The thetopapppreviews mention is a review, but it is very short, the reliability of the source is unclear, and by itself it does not constitute "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Please take a moment to review these policies: notability, verifiability and reliable sources, as well as What Wikipedia is Not. It may save some frustration if you know how those terms are used on Wikipedia.
Finally, please refrain from assuming that other people have sinister motives. Comment on contributions and not on contributors. Personal attacks on other editors are strictly forbidden. We are all here to try and improve Wikipedia, after all. (Oh, and Gene93k is completely innocent - they only made a routine housekeeping edit to the page.) Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Dark Vador

[edit]
Carly Dark Vador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. No indication this meets WP:MUSICBIO. Singularity42 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he appears to have inspired minimum coverage in the music press. meets WP:GNG. Coolcb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Herron

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

He is a non-notable former minor league baseball player Yankees10 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither overrules the other. They are either-or standards. If an article meets either standard, it is notable for our purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is no consensus between a keep and a merge, there is no chance the use of the deletion tool is warranted here. Merge discussions can continue in a more suitable venue. Courcelles 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of South Sudan

[edit]
International recognition of South Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This type of article is only useful for the likes of Kosovo where its creation is disputed by the parent state and other countries disagree with each other on the matter. The creation of South Sudan is uncontroversial in that Sudan has agreed to its secession. There is no evidence that any state plans to snub it by refusing to recognise. The list of countries who recognise SS will just contain those places where someone has found a list reference. Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would definitly be the better option because it will give time for this article to be evaluated better as time goes by.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also as it is protected and no admin appears willing to maintain it properly, look at the talk page, so many places have recognised which aren't listed, it's UN membership isn't mentioned, South Sudan was admitted by acclamation (which is with no objections). This page is not only unnecessary but is protected without a willing admin to maintain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you for real? That will result in 200 articles, each containing an identical list of 200 countries. And where will we get the dates from? This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in ages. Bazonka (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont bite. That his opinion and he has a right to it.Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bazonka, the lists would not be the same, Montenegro for an example is recognized by 144, not 200 countries.--Avala (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We couldn't possibly cope with another 200 articles. The server would run out of kerosene. Manning (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's in the AU yet, but otherwise I totally agree with 23230. I also worry that the sources that are used here are a bit hit-and-miss; some are contradictory, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're not getting the full picture - some small or underdeveloped countries may well have recognised but without the relevant media fanfare. Bazonka (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, South Sudan says it is a member but there is no good source. I have raised it on the talk page. Anyway, the point about the UN still stands (source: [11]).--23230 talk 21:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (small-ed as slightly off topic)[reply]
International recognition of Israel is an example. Outback the koala (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is an example of a country whose existence is disputed. South Sudan (probably) isn't. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since independence and there has been absolutely no controversial or unexpected events with regards to recognition. S.S. has been recognised by a large number of nations, including the country it declared independence from, all but one of its neighbours, all 5 permanent UN security council members and the G4. It has easily become a member of the United Nations, and yet the existence of this article makes it seem that there is some controversy over South Sudan's existence, putting it on par with Kosovo or South Ossetia. As far as I can see only one UN member has a similar article, Israel, and that is a special case.
As far as I can see, the votes above are mainly either merge or keep for a bit, then merge. I would say that, a week after independence, this article has frankly outlived its (questionable) usefulness. Overtime more countries will be added to the list, but that is all. If someone notable refuses to recognise it, then that might as well have as section in Foreign relations of South Sudan anyway. There is no reason to have a temporary article like this that most people agree will eventually be merged anyway. Therefore it should be merged now into Foreign relations of South Sudan.--23230 talk 13:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Please can we have some level-headedness now that the euphoria of having a new country has waned. I urge the keepers to reconsider. What is the benefit of this article? Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning in were lies the harm in Keeping this article for now. And in a few weeks time when the questions have been answered on how all countries are handling the question on south sudan independence, then start a new AfD or talk page discussion on how to move forward with this article. Seems like the "merge" and "delete" users here wants to rush a decision when infact it takes some time to see how it all will work out.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely likely that all countries will recognise South Sudan. Some will take their time, and others will do it informally or under the radar without any media coverage. The problem with this article is that it seems to be operating under the assumption that all countries will recognise in the same way, and that we will be able to document this. They won't, and we can't - it is misleading. And, unless any nation is vocal in its opposition to the independence of South Sudan, then all we're doing is effectively documenting how efficient different countries' foreign ministries are, not how they feel about South Sudan. Bazonka (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to long for merge(WP:SIZERULE). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename Keep for the historical record but rename International reaction to South Sudan Independence or something like that. NelsonSudan (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a good idea. It allows the article to become more than a list and therefore coverage of things like how Libya and Iran who preferred independence not to happen but were not going to be obstructive and how Eritrea may have had its own reasons for nto wanting independence.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that a rename to International reaction to South Sudan Independence makes the most sense, too, as the nominator writes. I would note that many countries in Latin America such as Mexico, most of Central America, Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica and Venezuela still haven't reacted to South Sudan's declaration of independence as of today. But the most unexpected is Zimbabwe in Africa: President Mugabe celebrated with the South Sudanese leaders on their independence day and still Zimbabwe hasn't officially recognised South Sudan. Strange. Anyway, the thing is a clear majority of states (perhaps 100 UN member states) should recognise South Sudan before this article should be renamed, I think. But that's just my view. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Er, what? There are countries that do NOT recognize. Vast majority does, this does not mean everybody. Furthermore the dates of when countries recognized is also relevant. -- とある白い猫 chi? 20:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur G. Abdulla

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

Non notable academic. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PROF GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng-Xian

[edit]
Zheng-Xian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. I can't find any trace of the town, the privatised shoe factory, or the disaster mentioned in the origins section. Plus, "notable only for its relative obscurity" seems a dead give-away. Danger (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a legally recognized place, I would expect to find census data or some sort of government source when searching, especially for a relatively large settlement like this. But, nada. --Danger (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of content previously deleted at AFD (and upheld at DRV). Michig (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder

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

—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Information Systems Security Professional

[edit]
Certified Information Systems Security Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is just an advert for a certification. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "I don't personally know this, therefore it must be unimportant"-nomination. And of course asking submitters to actually research the topics they're nominating for deletion would be too much to ask. Dunning-Kruger in full effect! 31.16.112.242 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Light

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

No indication of WP:notability. Article is mainly about her youth theatre and claims of being related to notable people. No independent sources. noq (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Liberty

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Though not a reason for deletion, the article also fails WP:NPOV, not surprising given the subject has been a major contributor to this article about himself. Msnicki (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concede he's authored a lot of books but that by itself does not satisfy the notability guidelines for WP:AUTHORs. To establish that he satisfies any of these criteria, we need sources WP:RS, the same as needed to meet WP:GNG. We're not quibbling, e.g., that we've got a couple independent articles about him but disagreeing whether the language quite rises to describing him as "an important figure." Notability is always and only about what do other people not connected to the subject say about the subject in reliable sources. We don't have those sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this as a reference to WP:ACADEMIC, especially the WP:ACADEMIC#Notes to specific criteria discussion of highly cited academic work, I don't think this contemplates a series of introductory tutorials. I think this contemplates the sort of scholarly work described as the first item in the WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria, namely, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't think this is satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the guidelines are you relying on to establish notability? I don't think there is anything in the guidelines to support notability based on "career achievement" without at least some criteria. For WP:AUTHORs, it's certainly not just "lots of books". Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that at a certain point, "lots of books" does indeed start to count. There is a "lots of articles" rationale used all the time in deletion debates about academics; this is no different in essence. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the subject is not an academic doing scholarly research adding to knowledge, he's an author who writes tutorial books. Nowhere in the guidelines can I find support for deciding an author is notable based on the number of books he's written. The fact this non-policy-based argument has been offered elsewhere is irrelevant; lots of WP:ATA get made all the time. The guidelines WP:GNG could not be more clear: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So far as I can tell, there are no such sources nor are there any to be found. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The books here are indeed educational; in my view this subject should be treated as we do academics. There is enough substance here to merit a useful page, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mention being a best seller because it is a subjective measure of notability. As for objective criteria, see Wikipedia:Notability_(books) Criteria 1: 'The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.' - Footnote #2: 'Slashdot.org for example is reliable.' :: A quick search finds this: http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/03/1545254/Programming-NET-35 ---- and, Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals Criteria 3: 'The 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 ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews' = Notable. Wxidea (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. At the top there is a big box, "This page in a nutshell." The first line of that box says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
  2. The first section after the lede is "Basic criteria." That again states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  3. The second section after the lede, "Additional criteria," says clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
It does not require a close reading of the text to see that the primacy of the basic criteria casts its shadow over all the later, subordinate sections. The additional criteria are not intended and have never been accepted as overriding the general notability requirements. So I do not believe that the arguments has even been made that this author can meet that standard? Finally, the notability guideline for book is, eponymously enough, about books, not authors. In the absence of signifigant coverage of this person in reliable sources, delete.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(With all due respect. I don't have even one book published, and the brave stance this author appears to have taken w.r.t. his personal life is to be commended, in my opinion.)
Aaron Brenneman is cherry-picking comments. As per WP:Ignore all rules, the issue rises of what makes a software author notable. We don't need to re-invent new guidelines, but Jesse Liberty is clearly a solid, mid-tier software author. Software books are not covered by mainstream media, they would only be reviewed in techie circles, so requiring news coverage is an inappropriate metric. Also, they are not critically studied, though they may be an invaluable resource in academic settings or for professionals. Market response matters and is a huge measure of notability. For example, "Sams Teach Yourself C++ in One Hour a Day" is in it's 6th Edition. "Sams Teach Yourself C++ in 24 Hours" is 5th Edition. "Programming ASP.NET" is 3rd Edition (from OReilly). This means the publisher sold so many books they updated the book and re-issued it. Or search for '"Jesse Liberty" syllabus site:.edu' in Google, you'll see a ton of courses using the book. The AfD in 2004 found the author to be notable. Brenneman specifically ignores the slashdot review, which 100% fits the guidelines. Maybe Brenneman should get a jump on these software book authors also: , there are 324 total, many of whom have similar notability to Jesse Liberty. Putting aside Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, there's clearly huge precedent for including tech authors who do not appear to fit the main biography guidelines for creatives. Jesse Liberty strikes me as firmly having more than enough notability. See similar Afds Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Jason_Dominus Wxidea (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I don't think "cherry picking" mean what you're trying to say here. You're making arguments about the books not about the author. It's perfectly sensible and internally consistent to say that Sam's book series has enough sources to make an article, but that according to the existing guidelines "Sam" doesn't.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense for this author to have articles about specific books. It's more about a corpus of work. You can find all the rules you want to say this is not notable, but my gut sense is that this is a notable and appropriate article about a tech writer. I do think the article needs editing/rewriting, though. Wxidea (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a person who has never published any fiction, but who has been published professionally on and off since 1984, I believe it is fair to say that non-fiction authors, especially in the boring world of "how-to", have much higher barriers to notability than fiction writers. Liberty is the sort of author who is known among others practicing his craft, but is not known to the world at large other than as a name on a book cover and title page. This does not constitute actual notability. If the next edition of Sams' Teach Yourself C++ in One Hour a Day had an author line of "Golias Silverlock" instead of "Jesse Liberty", not one in a thousand users of the volume would so much as blink, and only a fraction of the instructors who recommend it would notice or care. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Mike, that's a better argument than the others here, and I agree. The brand in this case is owned more by the publishers. While I think some of the counter arguments on this page are weak and overly bureaucratic, after looking at other author pages on Wikipedia, and thinking about this more, I think Jesse Liberty does not currently carry enough of a brand as to be notable. I'm changing my view to delete. But as a matter of principle, I think that prolific and adored tech or nonfiction writers should be considered notable if they have enough of a following. Wxidea (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that being a gay rights activist would be another avenue for notability, and for sure, role models are needed in the LGBT community. But one 'Human Rights Watch' profile is not notability. If anyone can find deeper evidence of Jesse's advocacy, then that could be the lede on the article, and he could be notable. Wxidea (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts like birds

[edit]
Hearts like birds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, by its author, about a newly-published book (published only on-line as an eBook). Fails WP:Notability (books). I bring this here because an earlier version was PRODded, though eventually speedied as a copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as its only available as an e-book it isn't exactly worthy of being encyclopedic content.Seasider91 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability for either the book or the author.--Dmol (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to National Museum of Singapore. Courcelles 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Singapore History Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be redirected to main article of the National Museum of Singapore, doesn't require an individual article. Quiggers1P (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as you say this is just part of a bigger article and as such should be summarised and put as a sub section only in the national museum of singapore article.Seasider91 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonassan Gershom

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

Does not meet general notability requirements Lactarius volemus (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Lactarius volemus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Проблема Бэкона

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

Essay/Original research Jac16888 Talk 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Простота и актуальность идей данной статьи, понятных всем думающим читателям без привлечения иных источников, придаёт им качества самоочевидных истин, не требующих авторитетных подтверждений. Поэтому данная статья соответствует правилу Википедии, не требующей подтверждения информации, содержащейся в самом предмете статьи, которую любой может проверить.
Правила удаления спорных и ложных текстов неприменимы к очевидно истинным, редактирование которых следует ограничить соучастием авторов. Предлагаемое усовершенствование правил Википедии послужит торжеству Истин, которые спасут мир. Mark (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google translation of above:
Simplicity and relevance of the ideas in this article, understandable to all readers thinking without the involvement of other sources, gives them a quality of self-evident truths requiring no authoritative confirmation. The article therefore corresponds to the rule of Wikipedia that does not require confirmation of the information contained in the subject article, which anyone can verify. Rules for removal of controversial texts and false are not applicable to the obvious truth that editing should be restricted to the complicity of the authors. The proposed improvement of the rules of Wikipedia will the triumph of truth that will save the world.
I don't think I need to point out the obvious problem with the statement. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete JDDJS (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Постулаты точности

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

Essay/Original research Jac16888 Talk 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Простота и актуальность идей данной статьи, понятных всем думающим читателям без привлечения иных источников, придаёт им качества самоочевидных истин, не требующих авторитетных подтверждений. Поэтому данная статья соответствует правилу Википедии, не требующей подтверждения информации, содержащейся в самом предмете статьи, которую любой может проверить. Правила удаления спорных и ложных текстов неприменимы к очевидно истинным, редактирование которых следует ограничить соучастием авторов. Предлагаемое усовершенствование правил Википедии послужит торжеству Истин, которые спасут мир. Простота и актуальность идей данной статьи, понятных всем думающим читателям без привлечения иных источников, придаёт им качества самоочевидных истин, не требующих авторитетных подтверждений. Поэтому данная статья соответствует правилу Википедии, не требующей подтверждения информации, содержащейся в самом предмете статьи, которую любой может проверить. Правила удаления спорных и ложных текстов неприменимы к очевидно истинным, редактирование которых следует ограничить соучастием авторов. Предлагаемое усовершенствование правил Википедии послужит торжеству Истин, которые спасут мир. Mark (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Основанием для включения в Википедию информации является не её «истинность», а проверяемость. Это означает, что читатель должен иметь возможность удостовериться в том, что представленный в Википедии материал уже был опубликован в авторитетных источниках. Википедия не средство для распространения новых идей. (Summary: The criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is not "truth" but verifiability. All material must have been previously published in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for disseminating new ideas.)  --Lambiam 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leuven Cricket Club

[edit]
Leuven Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Club is a non-notable Belgian cricket club. The league the club plays in is itself a non-notable league. A google search brings up only the club website and very few independent sources. This article fails WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bălănescu

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

Non-notable diplomat, does not pass WP:DIPLOMAT. Previous nomination was closed after 3 weeks with no comments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portable bicycle

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

Given that this is simply a type of folding bicycle, and a very wooly defintion at that with no quality references and a lot of POV/subjectivity, it would make sense to merge any salvageable content into folding bicycle then redirect. Biker Biker (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any bike is portable. For those portable types which can be folded, we already have a separate article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Kye-sang

[edit]
Yoon Kye-sang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proper references. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 15:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Nasim Faqiri

[edit]
Mohammad Nasim Faqiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proper references —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing administrator -- some wikipedians who weigh in with a deleted early in a discussion in the deletion fora make a point to check back later, to see if the article had been improved in ways that addressed their concern. Others don't. Given that this article has been almost entirely rewritten since Gun Powder Ma left their delete opinion, I suggest their delete should be discounted. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now has some references, and there seem to be many more on the Internet. This seems to be a work in progress, with major cleanup and expansion still needed. Peter Chastain (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented-out most of the references, to articles that mention Faquiri but do not support material in the article. Notability is established, IMO, but the article is seriously deficient. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for this? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you really mean to imply that there were no references to back up that he was the party`s spokesman? I know you checked the references, so you have to be well aware that many of the references explicitly characterized him as spokesman or senior spokesman for the party.

      As to whether he was appointed the Party's Secretary General in 2008, I didn't come across any references that supported this assertion. But I didn't remove the assertion, when I spent a couple of hours trying to rescue the article, because I suspected the article's original author, whose name indicates he is from the region, had access to local media that would support that assertion. The original author was the victim of serious lapses from WP:BITE. I hope they return so they can help complete the article on this notable individual. Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pajhwok Afghan News calls him the “general secretary of the party”. Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "JIA to see leadership changes: Faqiri". Pajhwok Afghan News. 2011-01-20. Retrieved 2011-07-16. The party, which has been led by former president Burhanuddin Rabbani since 1968, would hold a general assembly in which all members would elect a new leader and other officials, Mohammad Naseem Faqiri, the general secretary of the party, said.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher John Hall

[edit]
Christopher John Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toshi Iseda

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

Because it has no better references, give better references, not give reference from blogspot. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Mu Sigma

[edit]
Beta Mu Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage that indicate notability. Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources. The awards themselves may not grant the topic notability since they are non-notable and very minor themselves. Moray An Par (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't necessarily saying the awards say it is notable. I was saying find some for the place itself being notable, and, but separately, find some for the award claims. Rcsprinter (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, searching for them didn't return any useful results. Moray An Par (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment When the nomination says "No significant coverage that indicate notability" and "Claimed awards cannot be found in independent sources", I think it's fair to assume that the nominator has already looked for sources that would demonstrate notability. The point of the discussion is to determine whether or not the topic is notable now, not just close it as keep because it might be notable and then open another discussion afterwards. If someone thinks an article should be kept, they are allowed to look for supporting sources themselves and add them to the article. In fact, it's quite a good idea. :) --BelovedFreak 09:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (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) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve on an iPhone (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. The burden of proof rests on him/her, not the others. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network petition

[edit]
Cartoon Network petition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no sources to establish the notability.. Appears to be crystal. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:TOOSOON applies here, it can be recreated when and if the time comes. Courcelles 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Leftover Witch

[edit]
The Little Leftover Witch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. At the end of the day, the only thing that can be said about this subject is that a pilot is in development. Let's wait and see if this becomes notable. Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search and found two sources. Let's leave it alone for a bit. --Mblumber (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (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) 00:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Attention should be brought to MelanieN's commentary of this article, her points are dead-on and well taken. Courcelles 23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Spirit

[edit]
The Greek Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unreferenced since its creation, in March 2011, and I'm not able to find coverage in independent sources (with Google searches such as this). —Tommyjb (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2011 (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) 00:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DPS Science and Mathematics Talent Examination

[edit]
DPS Science and Mathematics Talent Examination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability naveenpf (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (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) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of a zillion examination tests, lacks notability. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Beanstalk Group. T. Canens (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stone (licensing expert)

[edit]
Michael Stone (licensing expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim to fame appears to be that he is the CEO of The Beanstalk Group, a privately-held company (itself with questionable notability). Other factors mentioned do not establish notability. ninety:one 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2011 (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) 00:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't necessarily think so. Being quoted in the New York Times is more likely to be mentioned than a biographical piece in a industry newsletter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can get is this, which is not even really worth of being described as a "profile" of the company, let alone Stone. Possibly merge to The Beanstalk Group until proper sources can be found for Stone himself? ninety:one 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:Bio specifies that bios should not remain limited to a mere CV, but establish the notability and the impact of the person in its field. This, however, hasn't been done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Sigma Phi (medical fraternity)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mu Sigma Phi (medical fraternity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage indicating notability. Notable claim "first medical fraternity in the Philippines and in Asia." has a dead link source and therefore unverifiable. No Google News hits.

Same rationale for Mu Sigma Phi Sorority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moray An Par (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2011 (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) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Google News is *useless* when it comes to the Philippines. Dead link for "first medical fraternity" has been fixed to a specific node entry. 13 hits for the Fraternity/Sorority in the Manila Bulletin alone. (http://ph.yhs.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22mu+sigma+phi%22&fr=yhs-manilabulletin-sea&ei=UTF-8&partnerid=yhs-manilabulletin-sea&vs=mb.com.ph) Naraht (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the first link works and supports the claim of being the first medical society, even though for such a strong claim a more reliable references would be welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johannesburg Youth Orchestra

[edit]
Johannesburg Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC; NO reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2011 (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) 01:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have a lot of articles on youth orchestras (Category:Youth orchestras). Do we have any criteria for their notability? WP:MUSIC fails to address this kind of band. --Kleinzach 07:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean when you say that the guideline fails to address this type of band. Why do you say that? Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article in the Johannesburg Business Day referred to them as "the well- known Johannesburg Youth Orchestra Company". That makes me suspect that I'd find plenty of sources if I were in South Africa. Cloveapple (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is claiming that youth orchestras are inherently notable. The question is whether THIS youth orchestra is notable, based on WP:GNG. In my opinion, the available sourcing is sufficient and the group is notable. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DoublePlays: Paging Mr Strike/Bring It On

[edit]
DoublePlays: Paging Mr Strike/Bring It On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Pretty Mess by This One Band

[edit]
A Pretty Mess by This One Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could This Be Love

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Could This Be Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Cruiser

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

This album was meant to be released in 2006. However it has been pushed back 17 times. The latest release date is August - The likleyhood would be this will never be released. So there already one big reason - It has no confirmed track listing etc.. which is a requirement. No coverage of the singles in widespread coverage. More so this article has multiple fansite sources, the only one that is not is MTV. Then you have billboard used as a source citing a song that isn't confirmed to be one this album. So really it has no sources and there is a lot of trivial info. Rain the 1 BAM 18:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2011 (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) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Ferriz de Con

[edit]
Pedro Ferriz de Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for Creative Professionals. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2011 (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, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Pagano

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

Individual is not notable. Has appeared on TV plenty of times but this does not amount to notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (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) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raisa Malsagova

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

Fails notability criteria for musucians. DonaldDuck (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (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) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commandos (Transformers)

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

Fictional group that has no third-party significant sourcing in the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowbar (Transformers)

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

Fictional character that does not appear to have enough significant third-party comment for independent notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlift (Transformers)

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have any third-party significant commentary. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Punch

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have any third-party significant commentary. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get Metsmerized

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for songs. Only reference is a Youtube video. Pstanton (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for finding the sources but they only attests the fact that the song exists, the last two sources only provide one passing mention of it. The song still does fails WP:NSONGS as there's no claim of notability for example charted or received awards--Michaela den (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Strip (Transformers)

[edit]
Drag Strip (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have any third-party significant commentary. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropshot (Transformers)

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have any third-party significant commentary. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (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) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I noticed you voted merge to Micromasters for Bombshock and delete for Dropshot, yet they are nearly identical characters, they were released at the same time, appeared in the same comics as each other, had the same sources, they are nearly identical characters. I don't see the consistancy. Mathewignash (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Kennel Club

[edit]
National Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many so-called "paper mill" registries -- none, to my knowledge, are notable by Wikipedia standards. I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources. What's in the article now is opinion based on someone's knowledge of the dog community, but an editor's opinion does not an article make. In summary: not notable. Annatalk 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (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, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pet Guardian Angels of American INCLUDES THE NKC in its rundown of registry organizations... Carrite (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not wowed by the stuff turning up. I've written to the organization asking for their help in pointing me to independently published articles on the group. Carrite (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back to explain/link to things. I'll note that the first site also includes the differences between AKC and CKC, AKC and ACA, AKC and UKC (which is actually #2 by several metrics and does have a Wikipedia article), and perhaps others. In other words, it simply can't be considered the second-largest, second-most well-known, etc. when looking at hard data. Those articles seem to be more about generating traffic((cn)) than implying anything, other than the fact that the AKC is far and away the most well-known. It accepts user submissions as well. But then, you seem aware of that so this is for the hopeful benefit of anyone else who reads through this discussion :) Anna talk 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Pearson

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

Promotional article created by subject, a non-notable academic. (cf. WP:Notability (academics).) Only one reliable independent third-party source is cited; it is behind a paywall. Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (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, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is some assertion of notability re: WP:Notability (academics), particularly pertaining to criteria 4 and 7 with her development of the "STEPS" program as a set of educational guidelines (as it seems to be recognized by several educational organizations and implemented in at least a few places) and her establishment of the Mary McLeod Bethune Institute, which was recognized by the Dept. of Labor. I will admit these assertions of notability are shaky at best, and would only hold up with better referencing, hence my 'weak keep' stance. Additionally, this article has serious COI issues and could stand some pruning and cleanup, but those alone are not reason to delete. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may be hard to find independent references about the use of the STEPS program, at this point twenty years after it was developed, back in the pre-Web era. Even the WITI page which describes STEPS and the Mary McLeod Bethune Institute was written by Tiffani Pearson (a volunteer for the MMBI; related?). This is not an independent third-party source. As an indication of MMBI's influence, two data points: (1) the Mass. Department of Education says they were no longer offering courses as of 2004[28]. However, MMBI's IRS tax filings show that the program is operating but small: it served "over 100 youths" in 2009: info found under its new corporate name: National Association Christian Education Ministry, Inc., via guidestar.org. (Complicating the search for references to MMBI is an apparently unrelated school of the same name in Los Angeles.) -- Chonak (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article whose Subject fails notability guidelines for academics. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. very worthy citizen, but I can't see the case for notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the prof test, meets no standards of notability, fails the GNG, and no evidence has been proffered that this STEPS program meets any standards of notability in its own right, so much so as to confer notability on its creator. We do not, and cannot, confer "conditional" notability pending better referencing; we can only delete without prejudice, pending better referencing.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria Edina

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Just a list of shops noq (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--if you look at the other articles linked in the infobox (e.g. Southdale Center, Knollwood Mall, Calhoun Square), it's clearly possible to write a solid article about Minneapolis malls of this caliber. The fact that this one hasn't been improved to that level yet doesn't mean it won't be. Slap an unreferenced tag on it and call it a day. This isn't a BLP, so there's no harm in letting material germinate. Meelar (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible to write good articles about all sorts of things - I'm not sure how this is relevant to this discussion. This is an unsourced article that seemed to survive the first deletion nomination only because no one backed it even though no one supported it. There has been no improvement to the article or to the sources I can find since then. It's a collection of shops without any obvious significance as can be found all over the world - why is this notable? noq (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion Pictures

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2011 (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) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of 30 Rock characters. causa sui (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rossitano

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without and real world notability or recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while all but one of the Google Books hits appear to be Wikipedia extracts and Google Scholar appears to have one paper mention repeated half a dozen times, there appear to be plenty of Google News references to this character. Having said that, I have no objection to editorial merge of this and other characters into a list article. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I;m fine with him being merged, I don't think is any source which could warrant him specifically needing an article though. Even awards he is involved in have been ensemble cast ones, not one for himself.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerie

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without and real world notability or recognition. Has references but these are just to episodes to back-up the plot regurgitation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strong Keep? Seriously? You're entitled to your opinion but how is she clearly a notable television character? Sounds more like a fan perspective than an objective one.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toofer Spurlock

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Just plot with POV. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hornberger

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Baker (character)

[edit]
Danny Baker (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Girard

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Article is only linked to twice, once in a pure list and again in a template.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Spaceman

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

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a minor supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2011 (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) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Lutz

[edit]
J. D. Lutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no references to independently ascertain notability. Character is a supporting character in this show without any real world notability or recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2011 (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, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night Mannheim 2006

[edit]
Fight Night Mannheim 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a mere 2 gnews hits and one refers to an event in 2007 and not this event. [29]. this article merely confirms the event happened. google search merely confirms fighting websites and directory listing. having notable fighters or being televised does not grant automatic notability and does not mean at all strong keep. those wanting to keep must provide indepth evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the strongest events in Germany and promoted by K-1 (the world’s strongest kickboxing organization) and W.M.C (the world’s most prestigious Muay Thai organization) with the W.M.C. incidentally having a world title fight on the card. While not the strongest line-up for a K-1 event these tournaments are an important developing event for future fighters who can compete against European level opposition before moving on to international competitions (possibly with K-1 or the WMC). I would argue also that these events are all part of the bigger K-1 picture and deleting these pages would weaken Wikipedia as a place for people to come for knowledge. To all that say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be about everything – I would agree, however, a series of events for a notable organization does not cover every single kickboxing event in existence and I (and other members) have no intention of swamping the site with results from the Cornish Amateur kickboxing league et al. The amount of deletion nominations must also be taken into account, making it very difficult for a small number of kickboxing enthusiasts that work on the Wikipedia pages to actually defend their work. Also do not approve of nominator telling me what kind of keep I can use - this is down to my own free will. Thank-you. jsmith006 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011
Wasn't the WMC fight for a European, not world, title? Astudent0 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - my bad. I would still consider that an example of notability (although obviously not quite as much). Also a German title fight on the line. jsmith006 (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (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, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The relevant WP guideline is WP:Event, which requires (WP:INDEPTH) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing." This event is rather minor, and has only 80 google hits, most of which appear to be Wikis. There appears to be no significant mention by independent secondary sources. Any important information in this article can be merged into a higher-level article on martial arts. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic confidence model

[edit]
Economic confidence model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crank economic theory, not notable except in relation to its creator Martin A. Armstrong. There appears to be one legitimate source (the New Yorker article), but that source really is about the creator of the theory, not about the theory itself. ArthurDenture (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ArthurDenture is obviously someone personally involved in the prosecution of Armstrong He ignores numerous articles covering this model all over the web, just the latest being in Barrons http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904548404576397780966386382.html?mod=googlenews_barrons no less NewYorker Magazine This is someone intent on slandering Armstrong and trying to restrict the right of others with interest in cyclical theory This is a model that was requested even by the Presidential Task Force after accurately predicting the 1987 Crash and Armstrong was even invited based on this model by China in 1997 Even if ArthurDenture does not believe in the business cycle, he has no right to restrict others from learning about this aspect of the economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffen409 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter whether only one person in the world believes it works. It exists and therefore needs to be included in Wikipedia. To argue it doesn't work and therefore should be removed means that Elliot Wave and EVERY form of technical analysis should also be removed from Wikipedia. This deletion discussion is beyond stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.147.65 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • For nearly 25 years I have followed this model and commentary on it as prominent features of international capital markets forecasting and analysis. Being a subject of seminars in major financial centres, commentary in respected journals, and keen interest from business and political leaders, surely attests to its validity as a Wikipedia topic. One person objecting to its inclusion when their objection clearly defies all facts is surely not a valid reason for deletion, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Cruise (talk • contribs) 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Pablo Cruise (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) 13:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArthurDenture? With a name like that, how would anybody take him seriously. He is an idiot with an agenda, obviously...or, one of the corporate shills who attacked and tried to destroy this good man Martin Armstrong. It is people like him, that will ultimately destroy everything, they live for destruction. Don't assist them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary E: I am adding my comments here concerning the absurd censorship attempt proposed here! Of the millions of items discussed on Wikipedia why is this work by Martin Armstrong chosen for deletion. I propose that the effort to block our access to this information is Orwellian at best. Please do not delete this article or all will see and know this is not a place where freedom of speech and thought are respected. Why is Wikipedia afraid of an economic confidence model and the ideas it proposes? This leaves me with all sorts of questions about Arthur Denture and the brains or lack there of behind the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.242.183 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This model was even taught at the Citadel in philosophy and his work has been compared to Hegel. Just search this model on the Web. It is talked about and interpreted by countless different analysts around the world. This is truly unbelievable that Wikipedia would allow one person to destroy the freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.54.95 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The Economic Confidence Model should be taught in business schools around the world as a window to practical economics. Martin Armstrong's contribution to economic thought should be preserved for posterity. Please preserve the tenet of free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanjakinuthia (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • As a lawyer, I have looked at ArthurDenture's revisions to the contempt definition on Wikipedia. He removed fundamental citations from the Supreme Court that clearly are in conflict with the way Armstrong was dealt with in New York. ArthurDenture seems to stalk Armstrong and claims never before hearing about him, but then posts he will rewrite the complete Wikipedia page on Armstrong, asserts the Economic Confidence Model is only important to Armstrong who he calls a "crank" an then mentions elsewhere that Armstrong writes as he speaks in court. These are not words from an unbiased source who never heard of Armstrong. The only rational conclusion a jury would make is that indeed you were involved in the prosecution of Armstrong and it appears you are desperate to cover that up by silencing him and all others. There are several legal papers written on contempt that mention Armstrong and I have yet to find one that supports as being legal what was done to him. Perhaps they should be posted as well. This is not the Middle Ages. If you are indeed an officer of the court, your IP Address can be traced and you know you are opening yourself up to not just a lawsuit, but a disbarment. Why are you persecuting this man? Did you get paid to keep him in jail on contempt for more than 7 years when you know the statute 18 USC 1826 places a maximum of 18 months and the legal quotes you removed from Justice Scalia make it clear there is no inherent power to just throw people in prison. This whole thing smells very bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Welcome to Wikipedia! Anyone can edit, so feel free to help improve the contempt of court article. Most of the content that I removed was off-topic, but some of it could certainly be cleaned up, recast in a neutral POV, and reinserted. — ArthurDenture (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you did not deny being involved in the prosecution of Armstrong since I fail to understand how you would know his manner of speaking in court unless you were there. ArthurDenture better look at the latest Supreme Court decision Turner v Rogers decided June 20, 2011 for it held that throwing a civil contemnor in prison denied counsel and resources violates due process. I know of no one in the legal community who thinks Armstrong was treated fairly being denied even the Fifth Amendment Privilege claiming it does not apply to corporate officers when indicted. There is no Supreme Court case that would justify that and this has never been done to my knowledge to anyone in American Jurisprudence since its inception. You better read http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf before you start writing anything to support your prosecution of Armstrong as being somehow just and fair. After Turner, I seriously doubt he would find it hard to bring in a lawfirm to overturn everything. Obviously, after the relentless attacks upon him that seem to be desperate attempts to cover up the total absence of due process of law he received in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEaglePA (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is removed from Wiki it will only serve to strengthen Martin's case. The man is a genius and deserves to be publicized. One day they will teach cycle theory in schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.46 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (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, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. This could be merged in to Martin A. Armstrong's own article. I have read quite a lot of what he has published. His style is arrogant, unorthodox, and uncouth, however he does have a huge following and his forecasting is pretty good (although not perfect). He is notably very good on long term forecasting. So much so that it is difficult to ignore him. His model is mentioned on numerous commercial websites (meeting WP:GNG) and blogs of some pretty notable individuals (not that it matters). Armstrong himself is a controversial figure.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Merge with Martin A. Armstrong. (This EC'd with Nipsonanomhmata) There is a semblance of notability, but it's hard to tease out whether that notability is more related to the theory's creator or the theory itself. Nonetheless, the article is long, rambling, confusing, and does little to assert the notability of the subject on its own or adequately explain the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Having also looked at Armstrong's article (which also is in severe need of cleanup), I'm leaning toward the idea that both articles would benefit from being merged together, with Economic confidence model redirecting to a section in Armstrong's article, and with a lot of pruning being done to explain only the essential basics of the model. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

More